Letter: Modified food
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Books have been written by scientists as eminent as Richard Dawkins to refute his "reductionist" view of biology. In fact the "one gene, one effect" picture of DNA has become quite old-fashioned. There is a complex web of interaction between genes, and even between genes and the environment. Dawkins has wrongly assigned the public and scientific doubts about the safety of genetically engineered crops to the introduced gene itself. It is the process of genetic manipulation that is suspect.
Although molecular biologists know something of the interactions involved, they do not know the whole story. There will be unpredicted and unpredictable biochemical outcomes in the life of the plant. These will be toxic in very few cases or to a small proportion of susceptible people. But the risk is real.
The statutory testing of genetically modified foods involves measuring levels of known toxins and allergens similar to those listed by Dawkins. It is the unpredicted toxins arising from the GM process that are not tested for. This is what the fuss is about and it is disingenuous of Professor Dawkins to imply a superstitious, ignorant basis to our concerns.
PATRICE GLADWIN
Cambridge
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments