Sir, - Dr Connor Long (October 8th) glosses over and belittles many legitimate arguments against genetic engineering. The Green Party throughout Europe is simply elucidating concerns shared by both public and scientists - some for ethical reasons, others because of known risks associated with the technology.
It may seem emotional to a scientist, but many people instinctively feel uncomfortable about any new technology which interferes with the building blocks of creation in the way that genetic engineering does. They have a gut reaction to an industry that clones sheep, transfers genes from fish to tomatoes, or indeed moves genes from viruses, bacteria and flowers into a sugar beet - especially when the only perceived benefit is to make the sugar beet resistant to a herbicide, with obvious commercial benefits.
The EPA cancelled a debate on genetic engineering at short notice. The outgoing government ruled questions on the issue out of order in the Dail. Without any public consultation whatsoever, these trials were carried out on government land in Carlow in the middle of a sugar-beet growing area, where birds can remove seed or pollen can be released.
Dr Long appears to be one of the many scientists who have a blind faith in this new technology, but many geneticists who have worked in the area of medicine feel less safe. There is mounting evidence that moving genes across the species barrier has unpredictable side-effects, and that putting alien genes into a plant may somehow affect the fine-tuning of the functions of other genes.
Recently evidence has emerged, for example, that genes spliced into soya beans to render them immune to a herbicide have the side-effect of increasing the milkfat yield of cows fed on such beans. This may be a benign side-effect, but we have no way of knowing what other side-effects lie in the wings.
Dr Long correctly states that sugar does not contain genes, and therefore cannot be described as genetically modified. But this does not mean that such sugar will be safe if made from genetically engineered ingredients. For example, in the US, some batches of Tryptophane (a food supplement which aids sleep) were produced using a genetically engineered ingredient. It was found to contain a new and hitherto unknown toxin which killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 more before it was discovered. If sugar produced from genetically engineered beet produced a similar chemical when processed into toffee, for example, the results would be disastrous - all the more so because under current legislation, such sugar would not be segregated, would be sold and labelled as any other, and traceability would be impossible.
Genetic Concern! believes that the only way to keep genetic engineering permanently out of Irish agriculture is by political lobbying, public debate, and the legal process. The hit-and-run in Carlow stopped one trial dead in its tracks, but unless there is the political will for Ireland to adopt a greener-than-Europe attitude, genetic engineering will be unstoppable. - Yours, etc.,
Spokesperson, Genetic Concern!, Dame Street, Dublin 2.