From MURRAY McLAUGHLIN
Susan Katz Miller’s article, ‘Genetic first upsets food lobby’ (This
Week, 28 May) was a good article for the activists, but it did not provide
a very balanced picture of the situation. It did not explain that biotechnology
is only a set of tools that allows scientists to be more precise in their
breeding programmes. Or that this precision will allow scientists to produce
healthier, safer, and more nutritious foods to meet the needs of a fast
growing population.
It said ‘many Americans have been hostile’ to the genetically engineered
hormone BST, but it overlooked the fact that milk consumption in the US
has not dropped since BST was introduced. Who are the ‘many’ that are boycotting
milk?
I understand that the Flavr Savr Tomato is being bought as quickly as
it enters the stores. Who is behind this acceptance of the products of biotechnology?
Is it the 280 million plus Americans who are not part of Jeremy Rifkin’s
27 000 activists?
As with any new product, there are those that want it and those who
do not; however, the public does have an uncanny capability to decide for
itself. Therefore, with a solid scientific base and an excellent regulatory
process to make decisions based on solid sciences, products of biotechnology
should be allowed to enter the marketplace.
Advertisement
Murray McLaughlin Ag-West Biotech Saskatoon, Canada
