I question the motivation behind the articles written in follow-up to the protest against GMO foods on May 25. I did read the editorial that came out after it and while it made some very good points about modifications to our food it did not touch the issue of genetic engineering. Todd Whitcombe referred to the editorial as excellent in his own May 30 article, but I beg to differ. The years of modifications in the past have been mostly through cross breeding, something farmers and gardeners can do with little laboratory experience. Companies like Monsanto are actually designing new plants with the addition of genes that that have never been used before, like aspects of e. coli in their corn. It might sound like the rhetoric of a bunch of back-water morons to people that don't want to take matters into their own hands, but there really is good cause to protest a company (or companies) and their actions to test their new creations on the populace (us). Mr. Whitcombe has made sweeping statements before; his take on the potential risks of cellular phone exposure was summed up as hooplah, leaving the biggest risks to the beating one might receive for annoying people in restaurants that overhear cellphone conversations. The bio-initiative report has been completed and is now available for consideration at bioinitiative.org; 1,400 pages of hooplah that speak otherwise (with a shorter version attached for the general public). I urge the paper with a name that represents the citizens to do some actual research themselves or hold peace and offer more speculative responses until the science is actually here. What have you got to lose?
Benn Byers
Prince George
