WW welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less. SEEDS OF DISCONTENT In the April 12 report on GE food ["Freak Foods"], you did not mention the Terminator Gene, since it presumably does not threaten health. However, it does give us a view of the thinking of Monsanto, a leader in pushing for widespread use of genetically engineered foods. The Terminator gene makes it impossible for the grain grown from its seed to be used as future seed, making the farmers dependent on seed suppliers for each year's planting. With people like this pushing GE products, do you believe they have your best interests at heart? B. Baker Southwest 91st Avenue Philip Dawdy responds: The Terminator technology does indeed exist but currently has no commercial application. RAGE AGAINST THE MUTANT TOMATOES Your story on genetically modified food was "low-fact," not the activists it profiled ["Freak Foods," April 12, 2000]. Among the many errors: Hybrid plants have not been used for thousands of years. They weren't developed until the 19th century. The article implied that no trans-species organisms are commercially available, yet the Flavr-Savr tomato (although no longer sold in the U.S.) contains a flounder gene. The Cornell laboratory study on the effects of Bt corn on Monarch butterflies is far from "debunked," as Terry Lomax arrogantly claimed, or "laughed at" by scientists, as the author sweepingly stated. In fact, harmful effects on Monarchs have also been demonstrated in the field by scientists at Iowa State. Furthermore, Bt has been shown to accumulate in the soil where genetically modified crops are planted and to kill other beneficial insects, such as lacewings. Many scientists are outraged at the way the Cornell study has been attacked by a vocal minority. As this reaction suggests, anti-GMO [genetically modified organism] activists are no more emotional than the corporations and scientists heavily invested in the so-called technology. To give just one other example, several years ago a scientist in Scotland told the media that his experiments suggested eating genetically modified potatoes damaged the brain, internal organs and immune systems of rats. This scientist, Arpad Pusztai, quickly became the subject of a smear campaign. His research was deliberately misrepresented, his reputation as a world-renowned researcher was sullied and the original data suppressed. All because he dared to suggest that these kinds of experiments weren't being done before releasing the GM crops into our food supply (without labels). Is it not playing to emotions to proclaim that GMOs are necessary to "feed the world" even though the United Nations statistics indicate there is enough food to feed the current population one and a half times over? Perhaps Philip Dawdy could devote the same critical attention to "facts" and "emotions" in the new $50 million GMO-industry propaganda campaign, not to mention his own writing. Phil Howard Columbia, Mo. Philip Dawdy responds: Perhaps I was being a bit loose with my terms, but plant cross-breeding has indeed been going on for thousands of years, though it was not until the mid-19th century that Gregor Mendel and others began calling it hybridization. Contrary to Mr. Howard's claim, the Flavr-Savr tomato doesn't contain a flounder gene. As to his insistence that the Cornell Monarch study has not been debunked: There may be some who still believe in its validity, but even the lead scientist has said that the results of his study were over-interpreted. None of the more than two dozen scientists I spoke with for this article--many of whom are critics of GE crops--mentioned the Iowa State study you cite. The effects of Bt crops on non-target insects is, as well, the subject of much debate at this point; nothing has been proven. Finally, nowhere in my piece did I claim or imply that GMOs are needed to feed the world, as Mr. Howard says. THE GREED REVOLUTION I would like to mention a few salient points that often go unmentioned during discussion of genetically altered foods ["Freak Foods," April 12, 2000]. Plant foods are often modified in order to increase their shelf-life and to improve appearance. A problem inherent in this practice is the loss of nutritive value of such foods. Increasing the world's food supply becomes a dubious endeavor, considering that the world may need to eat, say, two GE apples for every one organic to obtain the same nutrition. Also unmentioned is the way Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybean has forced farmers to become dependent upon the corporation famous for making Agent Orange. Roundup (facing a ban in the European Union) accumulates in the soil, removing the choice from the farmer to ever grow any other crop on such land, as it would poison any other crop. Monsanto has also offered loans to farmers, promising to buy their products at a fair market value based on the crop's quality, then increasing quality standards far beyond what the Department of Agriculture requires. Thousands of farms have been foreclosed on in this insidious manner. This is simply a "land grab," concealed under the guise of "helping to feed the world." Seldom discussed is the validity of global food production in the first place. I fail to see how large tracts of land, especially in the Third World, are better put to use producing monocultural export crops rather than a wide variety of indigenous ones for local consumption. Perhaps we should stop calling such nations "underdeveloped" and give them a more appropriate moniker: "overexploited." Lisa Mann Northwest Saltzman Court ADDICTED TO SUV LUV As a recovering SUV owner, I understand the attraction to the size, safety and playfulness of such a vehicle and the related need to rationalize "SUV LUV" [WW, April 19, 2000]. I am here to tell SUVers that the transition from an SUV to a "real car" was easier than expected. With dual air bags, anti-lock breaks and other features, I feel just as safe in my all-wheel-drive Subaru Legacy Outback than I did in my Land Rover. Now, when I drive our Discovery (for sale...anyone interested?), I feel like I'm in a box on stilts about to tip over. If I have withdrawals for the sense of security gained from riding above the traffic flow, I can take a bus or MAX to fix that craving. And to those who "wouldn't be caught dead driving a station wagon," they're as much fun as you make them. I switched vehicles when I could no longer "justify" the harm an SUV does to our environment or potentially to others on the road. If you are like most SUVers who "cite safety for themselves and their families" as the reason for your choice, what about your part in creating an unsafe and unhealthy environment for your children, in addition to setting an example that the ends (image of youth and fun) justify the means (global warming--trite but true--and dangerous roads for others). I don't think SUVs and their owners are the ultimate evil, but I do think we should listen to the words SUVers use to describe this attraction: "justify" and "rationalize" (my words), "obscene," "not about to feel guilty," "image," "inconsistency" and the scariest--"I know better." You are smart people--you do know better. Don't use safety as an excuse; at least be honest about your rationale. There are plenty of safe vehicles out there--safer (for your family and for other drivers) than SUVs. I use the comparison of SUV LUV to drug addition tongue-in-cheek, but there are some similarities, including sense of power, image, control, status, identity, and belonging, as well as good old peer pressure (quote from potential buyer: "Everyone else has one"). There are other ways to meet those needs; there are other options for safe and fun vehicles. Jane Sage Southeast 23rd Avenue   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published April 26, 2000