Leading Scientists Debate the Merits of Biotechnology
Read the debate on transgenic crops published in AgBioForum. Miguel Altieri of
the University of California at Berkeley and Peter Rosset of Food First/The Institute for
Food and Development Policy argue
that biotechnology is not the solution to world hunger. Martina McGloughlin of the
University of California, Davis, responds with a defense of
biotechnology, to which Altieri
and Rosset reply.
EPA Restricts Gene-Altered Corn in Response to Concerns
Farmers Must Plant Conventional 'Refuges' to Reduce Threat of Ecological Damage
Click
here
Lessons from the Green Revolution: Do We Need New Technology to End Hunger?
by Peter Rosset, Joseph Collins, and Frances Moore Lappé
Click here
Why Genetically Altered Food Won't Conquer Hunger
An op-ed by Peter Rosset of Food First
Click here
News and Analysis on Genetic Engineering, Factory Farming, &
Organics
by: Ronnie Cummins & Ben Lilliston
Campaign for Food Safety
Click here
MONSANTO BARS SELLING OF SEEDS MADE INFERTILE
from The New York Times
Seeking to remove itself from an inflamed debate in biotechnology, the Monsanto Company
said on Monday that it would make no effort to market seeds that produce crop plants that
are themselves infertile.Although the possibility of any company's selling such seeds is
years away, and Monsanto has repeatedly said that it has not developed them, its
prominence in biotechnology and its plans to purchase a company that has patented such
seeds have made it a lightning rod for the furor over what critics have labeled
"Terminator" technology. Seed sterility could be a very valuable trait for the
major biotechnology companies, which, through genetic modification, have created plants
with traits like resistance to insect pests or the ability to withstand spraying with weed
killers.
PROTESTS THREATEN TO KEEP GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS OFF THE MARKET
from The Los Angeles Times
A storm of protest against genetically engineered foods by foreign governments and
consumers has reached U.S. shores, leading some experts to predict that agricultural
biotechnology could go the way of nuclear energy -- falling out of favor because of public
fears and unfavorable economics.Critics say the industry erred by rushing products with
unknown health or environmental side effects to market before the public was ready and
harnessing the technology to help farmers and food distributors rather than creating
obvious benefits for consumers.Even industry leaders acknowledge that a protest movement
that began in Europe and Asia is having a telling effect in the United States, bringing
threats of a global trade war and stalling the introduction of a new wave of genetically
altered crops with improved nutritional benefits.
GENE-ALTERED FOOD STUDY FUELS A FIRE
from The Washington Post
The emotional debate over whether genetically engineered food is safe to eat escalated
yesterday with the publication of a controversial study showing possible health problems
in rats that ate gene-altered potatoes.Preliminary results of the study, which were leaked
more than a year ago, have been a rallying cry for opponents of biotechnology in Europe,
where there is widespread fear that gene-altered crops pose serious medical and
environmental risks. This is the first time the results have been described in detail in a
scientific journal.But in a highly unusual twist, the editor of the journal has written a
commentary revealing that several of the journal's own scientific reviewers considered the
report to be unworthy of publication. They ultimately acquiesced, he writes, in part out
of fear that biotech critics would accuse the journal of covering up a public health
threat.