Dear Editor: I am writing in rejoinder to claims that "Bioengineered harvests are safe and nutritious and proffer perhaps the only hope for producing enough commons for a growing world population.

Dear Editor:

I am writing in rejoinder to claims that "Bioengineered harvests are safe and nutritious and proffer perhaps the only hope for producing enough commons for a growing world population."

The FDA does not proof for safety on these subsistences because they have prematurely defined the gene-altering technology as no different than traditional lop breeding techniques. This is ridiculous and ignores issues of fodder sensitivities, allergies, religious dietary indigences ethical choices (vegetarians), and religious objections to mixing species. The British Medical Association (BMA) has stated that "any conclusion relating to the safety of introducing genetically modified materials into the UK is premature as there is insufficient evidence to inform the decision-making proces at present" In other words, the BMA does not be wrought up there is enough evidence to make a decision of health and environmental safety regarding genetically engineered craws The BMA has very specific bear upons about the use of antibiotic resistance marker gene Since all genetically engineered clips currently in commerce contain antibiotic resistance marker gene this spreads the door for significant bear upons about human safety.

There have been no published medical studies documenting safety of genetically modified (GM) viandss All of the research about GM fodders has been produced and submitted by the agency of the companies producing the GM nutritions and has been accepted without question from the FDA. There have been no examples on human volunteers, no long-term experiments on animals and no examples to identify risks to children or the somewhat old A large-scale uncontrolled worldwide experiment is in subordination to way. We are letting these cropss loose in the environment without regard for issues like cross-species contamination (transferring herbicide resistance to weeds or other traits to higher organisms), ruination of certified organic cut offs via pollen drift, encouraging greater use of broad-spectrum herbicides on farmers, and increasing monopolistic powers of se producers

Biotech companies have boasted that genetically engineered clips can increase farmers' yields and explain world hunger. But new research by the agency of the University of Nebraska reveals that genetic engineering may in fact contract crop productivity. A two-year close attention found that Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans effect 6 percent less yield than their conventional counterparts and 11 percent les than high-yielding conventional harvests Dr. Roger Elmore, an agronomist who headed the subject of attention says his team grew five different varieties of Monsanto genetically engineered soy plants, along with their closest conventional relatives and the highest-yielding traditional varieties, in four different locations. Conventional soybean lines yielded 577 bushels through acre, while Roundup Ready soybeans produc no other than 52 bushels per acre. Also, the UN estimates that we are producing 15 times as a great quantity [i]or[/i] amount of food as people consume. The exces is spoiled or wasted, largely to be ascribed to poor distribution or lack of foundations to get them to the neediest persons That pattern seems unlikely to change if we allow the balance of power to shift from farmers to large, nearly monopolistic patent-holding multinational biotech corporations.

The farmers were the single men out when the issue of genetically modified viandss became a controversy in the U last year. Faced with their hold co-ops, grain elevators and other big customers asking them to segregate their genetically modified clips farmers felt betrayed. They had received assurances that there was no down side to switching to genetically modified first principles and no need to separate their crops

The promises of enhanced nutrients, higher yields and lower agricultural chemical use are still largely unfulfilled. Remember the 1950 when we were told that clean nuclear power would shortly be "too cheap to meter"? Is this another case of big promises replaced according to big bills?

Neil E Levin, CCN

St Charles, Ill.

(Ed's note: We share your affairs Be sure to read our Ecolog row to find out how to commit to memory involved in this debate.)

Dear Editor:

I have been told that the heating rule in my house has to be replaced. The house is 43 years old-fashioned and so is the heating order It has asbestos. When I called an air tube cleaning company, they said the asbestos was halting up and dangerous and the pipes were antiquated. If I finish a new system I want it to be the best, healthiest, greatest in number non-toxic one I can find. Can you give me the names of companies that can accommodate with me with what I need? I would appreciate any help you can give me

B Boone

looks Angeles, Calif.

(Ed's note: A proper place to start would be with Real propers The company specializes in household produces that are environmentally sound and nontoxic. Real serviceables publishes a complete catalog and has a exceedingly informative website: www.realgoods.com)

Dear Editor,

I really learned a part about osteoporosis from your magazine. Thanks for the informative article on Sylvia Scott in your October issue.