Blasting "bio-foods".

Perhaps Sally Deneen was trying to give some kind of journalistic "balanced objectivity" to her cover story article "Food Fight" (July/August 2003) by reporting both sides of this issue. However, there is no balanced view. Americans have been duped and kept in the dark about the grave consequences of using genetic engineering. We are guinea pigs for corporate profits at great expense to our health. Serious problems are already reported in scientific journals.

As E's issue went to press, an important document entitled "The Independent Science Panel on GM [Genetically Modified] Final Report" was published. A short version is online at www. scoop.co.nz and the full report is at food.first.org. The report was written by a panel of prominent international scientists in several disciplines. It is a damning report, yet it has not been reported in any American media. Anyone interested in the vital issues of health and safety must read this.

Genetically engineered foods/seeds are not safe. It is something I address in my new book The Uterine Crisis. Keep up the great work.

Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri

Julian, CA

I found Sally Deneen's article about GE [genetically engineered] foods very interesting. I would add that a detailed report from internationally recognized investment research and advisory firm Innovest Strategic Value Advisors found the technology to be potentially ruinous. The report gave Monsanto its lowest possible rating and argues that high risk makes agricultural biotech companies not worth investing in unless they change their focus away flora GE technology.

Innovest's report condemns genetic engineering, the industry and its regulatory framework. It points out that the benefits of GE crops may be substantially less than is claimed, and it stresses the significance of so many countries currently rejecting the technology. Innovest concludes contamination of the technology is inevitable, and argues the consequences (and difficulty in obtaining insurance) could bankrupt biotech companies, leaving the rest of society to deal with the mess. The report also explains the risk of bias in GE food safety testing, and complains of an improper relationship between commerce and government.

Trudy Bialic

PCC Natural Markets, via e-mail

I read with interest the article by Sally Deneen in the July/August 2003 issue of E. It was pretty good coverage of the topic, however, the author side-stepped a very crucial aspect--namely, the presence already of scientific research and anecdotal evidence of food safety dangers of ingesting GE foods, for both human beings and livestock.

Although the biotech industry often uses the difficulty of safety evaluation of foods as an excuse for not performing tests, there have been a few animal studies with disturbing results. There have been no proper human clinical trials on the subject, and I can't imagine anything more troubling than potential links between the consumption of GE food and reproductive problems and death.

For example, in one 42-day research trial conducted at the University of Guelph in Ontario, twice as many chickens fed GM maize died compared with those on conventional diets, and the surviving birds fed the genetically engineered food varied widely in size. The study was paid for by Aventis/Bayer, which is the biotech firm that developed the maize. Although scientists from the University of Bristol, in reviewing the study, argued that this should have trigged more research into the matter, British regulators used the trial to back up their approval of the crop.

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) only official safety evaluation of the GM crop Flavr SavrTM tomato has never been published, but because of a court case, it is on the Alliance for Biointegrity website. Male and female rats were fed on normal rat chow but were also given by stomach tubing a daily dose of tomato, either genetically modified or conventional. There was an increase in glandular stomach damage in four out of 20 female rats but none in the controls or male rats. The numbers increased to seven on re-scoring by an independent pathology panel.

The FDA claimed the stomach lesions had nothing to do with GM tomatoes but occurred spontaneously because of the rat chow and stress, even though the same conditions applied to the controls. The FDA should have exercised caution and widened the scope of the study.

Another study showed damage to the guts of mice fed GM potatoes. An unpublished study commissioned by the British Food Standards Agency found that transgenic DNA survives in the guts of humans and can be taken up by gut bacteria. In 1998, when the U.S. greatly increased exports of genetically modified soybeans to the United Kingdom, British scientists reported "an unusual 50 percent increase in soy allergies."

Since federal authorities are intent on dismissing legitimate scientific evidence questioning the safety of GM foods, one wonders if their main concern is to promote GM technology and not to present unbiased information to the public.

Chrys Ostrander

Davenport, WA