Sir, - Ciaran McKenna accuses me (May 3rd) of encapsulating "the sheer wrongheadedness of the supporters of GM foods".
He goes on to point out that "GM foods are being developed for commercial, not humanitarian, reasons" and accuses supporters of GM of being "naively unaware of the realities of modern capitalism". The first point to note here is that Mr McKenna's argument constitutes a critique of capitalism, not of genetic engineering or biotechnology per se. Does he really believe that I, or any other advocates of genetic modification, harbour the illusion that the biotechnology sector is the corporate embodiment of Mother Teresa, motivated purely by noble, philanthropic principles? Of course, firms like Monsanto are concerned about feeding the world only in so far as that means capturing world food markets and boosting profits. In a market economy, how could it possibly be otherwise?
Notwithstanding this, however, the suggestion that the benefits of GM will be confined to the rich consumers of Europe and North America is simply false. In the absence of any other system of economic and social organisation on offer, the activities of the biotechnology corporations represent the best hope we have of meeting the challenge of feeding the world's growing population.
The potentially enormous benefits of genetic modification are far too numerous to outline here. But let's take rice as an example, the staple diet of many of the world's poorest countries. Through genetic engineering, rice can be made more nourishing, higher-yielding and more resistant to pests. Already, Swiss scientists have developed what is known as "golden rice", into which the gene for beta-carotene has been inserted. When finally grown, this crop can prevent the blindness induced by vitamin-A deficiency that strikes 250,000 children annually. How dare Luddite European protesters put such opportunities in jeopardy?
Mr McKenna argues that "Monsanto and other corporations are not developing GM crops with the intention of distributing them free of charge to the world's poor countries". Obviously. Yet the heavy burdens that anti-GM protesters impose upon farmers and the industry as a whole through their self-indulgent demands for regulation after regulation are hardly calculated to keep the costs of these new products down and more affordable to the world's farmers.
It is noticeable that those most vociferously opposed to GM foods are based in countries least likely to be debilitated by malnutrition: the type of people who can afford to indulge their preference for expensive, quick-rotting organic food. However, the countries of the developing world can ill-afford to engage in lengthy disputes about imaginary, hypothetical risks or irrational fears and prejudices. - Yours, etc.
Damian Byrne, Mountjoy Square, Dublin 1.