May 12, 2000 / The Expositor (Brantford) / Letter
Norm Walpole of Waterford writes that the issue of genetically modified
foods has sparked a raging debate and that it is probable that both the very
pro and the very con statements are suspect and that the truth probably is
to be found somewhere in the wide gap between them.
Walpole says it bothers him that the federal government is preaching the
corporate line rather than seeking the truth that probably lies somewhere
between the two extreme positions.
During a recent United Nations Conference on Biological Diversity and
Bio-safety, 118 scientists from 24 counties presented the following list of
potential hazards: the possible transformation of oral bacterium by DNA
entering human saliva; the risk of transmitting gene-sized fragments in the
gut of farm animals; the possible triggering of auto-immune reactions; the
possible mutation of a virus associated with chronic fatigue syndrome; and
birth defects caused by a herbicide used on millions of acres of GM crops.
Because our history with such crops is so short, we do not have the
experience or knowledge to refute such claims and hoping for the best or
blind faith are simply not good enough.
The same scientists, says Walpole, recommended that governments impose an
immediate moratorium on further environmental releases of transgenic crops,
food and animal-feed products for at least five years; ban patents on living
organisms, cell lines and genes; and support a comprehensive, independent
public inquiry into the future of agriculture and food safety for all,
taking into account the full range of scientific findings, as well as
socioeconomic and ethical implications.
The government is faced with a real democratic dilemma: Will it require the
labelling of products as "Contains Genetically Modified Material" and "Contains No Genetically Modified Material" and in so doing, arm the
consumer with the ability to choose what her/his family will ingest? Or will
it line up behind the biotech corporations and play Big Brother by denying
us the tools to decide for ourselves? What is in the best interests of a
corporate sector is often not what is in the best interests of the public.
(posted without permission)
