From OUR READERS - Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

I am writing in reply to claims that "Bioengineered harvests are safe and nutritious and proffer perhaps the only hope for producing enough provisions for a growing world population."

The FDA does not trial for safety on these nutritions because they have prematurely defined the gene-altering technology as no different than traditional harvest breeding techniques. This is ridiculous and ignores issues of sustenance sensitivities, allergies, religious dietary wants ethical choices (vegetarians), and religious objections to mixing species. The British Medical Association (BMA) has stated that "any conclusion on the safety of introducing genetically modified materials into the UK is premature as there is insufficient evidence to inform the decision-making proces at present" In other words, the BMA does not have feeling there is enough evidence to make a decision of health and environmental safety regarding genetically engineered harvests The BMA has very specific relate tos about the use of antibiotic resistance marker gene Since all genetically engineered harvests currently in commerce contain antibiotic resistance marker gene this uncloses the door for significant relate tos about human safety.

There have been no published medical studies documenting safety of genetically modified (GM) cheers All of the research about GM diets has been produced and submitted by dint of the companies producing the GM rationss and has been accepted without question by means of the FDA. There have been no ordeals on human volunteers, no long-term trials on animals and no experiments to identify risks to children or the somewhat advanced in life A large-scale uncontrolled worldwide experiment is beneath way. We are letting these productions loose in the environment without regard for issues like cross-species contamination (transferring herbicide resistance to weeds or other traits to higher organisms), ruination of certified organic harvests via pollen drift, encouraging greater use of broad-spectrum herbicides through farmers, and increasing monopolistic powers of se producers

Biotech companies have boasted that genetically engineered harvests can increase farmers' yields and clear world hunger. But new research by means of the University of Nebraska reveals that genetic engineering may in fact bring crop productivity. A two-year investigation found that Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans bring into view 6 percent less yield than their conventional counterparts and 11 percent les than high-yielding conventional harvests Dr. Roger Elmore, an agronomist who headed the close attention says his team grew five different varieties of Monsanto genetically engineered soy plants, along with their closest conventional relatives and the highest-yielding traditional varieties, in four different locations. Conventional soybean lines yielded 577 bushels by means of acre, while Roundup Ready soybeans produc single 52 bushels per acre. Also, the UN estimates that we are producing 15 times as a great quantity [i]or[/i] amount of food as people consume. The exces is spoiled or wasted, largely owed to poor distribution or lack of capitals to get them to the neediest clan That pattern seems unlikely to change if we allow the balance of power to shift from farmers to large, nearly monopolistic patent-holding multinational biotech corporations.

The farmers were the not divisible by 2 men out when the issue of genetically modified commonss became a controversy in the U last year. Faced with their have a title to co-ops, grain elevators and other big customers asking them to segregate their genetically modified harvests farmers felt betrayed. They had received assurances that there was no down side to switching to genetically modified sperms and no need to separate their crops

The promises of enhanced nutrients, higher yields and lower agricultural chemical use are still largely unfulfilled. Remember the 1950 when we were told that clean nuclear power would before long be "too cheap to meter"? Is this another case of big promises replaced by the agency of big bills?

Neil E Levin, CCN

St Charles, Ill.

(Ed's note: We share your belong tos Be sure to read our Ecolog round pillar to find out how to acquire involved in this debate.)

Dear Editor:

I have been told that the heating combination of parts to form a whole in my house has to be replaced. The house is 43 years elderly and so is the heating combination of parts to form a whole It has asbestos. When I called an air conduit cleaning company, they said the asbestos was shattered up and dangerous and the pipes were antiquated. If I achieve a new system I want it to be the best, healthiest, greatest in quantity non-toxic one I can find. Can you give me the names of companies that can provide me with what I need? I would appreciate any help you can give me

B Boone

sees Angeles, Calif.

(Ed's note: A profitable place to start would be with Real usefuls The company specializes in household productions that are environmentally sound and nontoxic. Real profitables publishes a complete catalog and has a true informative website: www.realgoods.com)

Dear Editor,

I really learned a allotment about osteoporosis from your magazine. Thanks for the informative article by means of Sylvia Scott in your October issue.