Crop resistance?
The kerfluffle over GM foods misses the point, as I pointed out to the Financial Times.
Sirs,
Your otherwise thorough account of the debate over genetically modified foods (“Crop resistance: why a transatlantic split persists over genetically modified food,” Feb. 1) misses two key points. First, virtually all plant products sold commercially are genetically modified. The only difference is whether they were modified by natural selection, deliberate breeding, or more clever techniques. This is the basis for the pro-GM countries’ claim that there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between what are labeled as GM and non-GM crops and it is sound scientifically. Second, the EU position is far less principled than your account suggests, for you omit the interest groups behind the scare in Europe. Some European agricultural interests, the same ones feeding from the public trough under the Common Agricultural Policy, are engaged in what Clemson University economist Bruce Yandle refers to as a “bootleggers and Baptists” coalition. In the rural American south, bootleggers, seeking protection from competition from legal liquor stores, ally with Baptists, opposed to all sales of liquor, to promote laws forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays. The Baptists provided respectability to the campaign, the bootleggers the cash needed to help persuade politicians to see the light. Similarly, in Europe, the agricultural protectionists are playing bootlegger, while the anti-GM organizations such as Friends of the Earth play Baptists. As your article documents, however, Europe is paying the price, as companies move research operations to more science-friendly locations such as the U.S.
Andrew P. Morriss
Sirs,
Your otherwise thorough account of the debate over genetically modified foods (“Crop resistance: why a transatlantic split persists over genetically modified food,” Feb. 1) misses two key points. First, virtually all plant products sold commercially are genetically modified. The only difference is whether they were modified by natural selection, deliberate breeding, or more clever techniques. This is the basis for the pro-GM countries’ claim that there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between what are labeled as GM and non-GM crops and it is sound scientifically. Second, the EU position is far less principled than your account suggests, for you omit the interest groups behind the scare in Europe. Some European agricultural interests, the same ones feeding from the public trough under the Common Agricultural Policy, are engaged in what Clemson University economist Bruce Yandle refers to as a “bootleggers and Baptists” coalition. In the rural American south, bootleggers, seeking protection from competition from legal liquor stores, ally with Baptists, opposed to all sales of liquor, to promote laws forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays. The Baptists provided respectability to the campaign, the bootleggers the cash needed to help persuade politicians to see the light. Similarly, in Europe, the agricultural protectionists are playing bootlegger, while the anti-GM organizations such as Friends of the Earth play Baptists. As your article documents, however, Europe is paying the price, as companies move research operations to more science-friendly locations such as the U.S.
Andrew P. Morriss
Posted by Andrew Morriss on
Tuesday February 14, 2006 at 10:22pm