Please find below a representative sampling of submissions from February, 2001 - May, 2001. Some submissions have been edited for length. Only those submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address have been omitted.

Thank you for your involvement and interest. To comment on the current topic, click here.

I feel sad that we would not be debating the issue if violent tactics had not been used. We all know, however that unaposed, corporations will do anything bad for their bank balance. I am aware that we do produce enough food allready for everyone. I am however resigned to the flaws of the capatalist system and hope that GMO's will keep alive those that the present system doesn't. Monsanto are presenting themselves in this sense as smashing the system rebels working for the good of the planet good luck. I only hope you don't fail where all other companies have.

P.S. Maybe if we sold contraception as aggressivly as GMO's we wouldn't have the problem in the first place. (I say this as a catholic)

Nick Scott
UK
Scottiedowg@aol.com

I feel that rigid, uncompromising and ignorant activists tend to hinder open discussion of a delicate subject. Considering the violent outburst of certain activists and their unwillingness to rationally understand emerging transgenic varieties before making aggravating statements to the media tranforms genetics into a rat race for controlling public opinion. Whichever side is better able to manipulate the general public into beleiving their side is the victor. Technology and future human well being are the only sufferers.

Shirish
Cornell, U. S. A.
srb25@cornell.edu

Although agriculture is classified as "Oldest Economy" but new born childs of the so-called "New Economy" are Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, which have the potential to drive the Indian economy. In the near future it will be even faster that IT Services (given the area under cultivation and our exports in terms of our GDP).

Biotechnology is here in India to stay. What is needed now, is awareness among the masses about the positive aspects of Biotechnology. In the years to come when R&D in Biotechnology will integerate with Bioinformatics services, the production of GM Foods will be likely to intensify. Hence, our malnourished population can only be supported by GM foods, which in last 55 years our politicians have not delivered! More than that, valuable foriegn exchange can be earned to support a growth in our GDP...even in the New Economy! Thank You.

Sandeep Bhatnagar
Hyderabad
bhatnagarsandeep@yahoo.com

The "activists" Monsanto fears are not raging maniacs but a group of non-governmental organizations and a population of informed, globally concientious individuals. They are people seeking to dispell the myths that the cooporate media feeds to the public. Clearly, the potential societal, economic, and environmental damage involved in GE ventures vastly outweigh any possibility of reversing global problems.

Melissa Simon
Beloit College, Wisconsin, USA
simonm@stu.beloit.edu

Well the importance of this technology is known world wide and india is not the first country to protest against it. Since every new technology takes its time to be understood and accepted. Everyone protested against use of IT for it would cost everyone affected by it its lively hood , the dear job. But what happened those protested had to accept the fact that without IT you are nowhere.

So also it will take some time for the activist and people to understand biotech . Once it is known than actual revolution will occur not only in India but world wide.

Suresh Rathod
Mumbai
sonu_rathod@rediffmail.com

From most of the comments on this site, it's clear that negative attitudes towards GM technology have sharpened. Where I live - in the UK - negative attitudes will become more pronounced as the media and political class debate the lessons to be learnt from the Foot and Mouth crisis. It's unfortunate that, as I write, modern and innovative farming techniques are being blamed. The fact that Britain has only had one outbreak of this disease since 1967 indicates that farming needs to be more, not less, innovative. I wonder if the contributors to this site realise that the only parts of the world where this terrible disease is endemic are the countries of the Third World where agriculture is extensive, not intensive, and virtually organic.

A common thread of criticism to be found in many contributions to this topic is that GM food is unsafe and organic food is somehow safer. In fact, according to the House of Commons committe on agriculture, there is no scientific evidence to prove 'that any of the many claims made for organic farming [as against GM food] are always and invariably true'. The natural toxins produced by parsnips, for example, cause blisters on the skin of farm workers. Yet educated people still seem more scared of eating traces of a few, strictly regulated, man-made chemicals than they are of eating ones that nature created directly.

It is odd that as the world becomes more edcuated and less hungry, the resistance to modern technology grows. The old Byzantine proverb that a man with a full stomach has many problems but that he with an empty stomach has only one, has more than a grain of genetically modified truth to it. Opposition to GM technology is overwhelmingly to be found amongst the educated middle classes. But those who they purport to speak for - Third World farmers - support new and innovative technologies like these. They understand that if GM food production is curtailed, future food supplies will be insuficient. For less developed countries, the clamour for organic farming is irrelevant. Land is so starved and crop yields are so low that ther is simply not enough organic matter to put back into the soil. Using new farming methods is the only option available to them.

I think that opponents of GM technology hold the beliefs they do more because of the romantic associations of nature, than any real desire to protect the Third World. In short, they're playing out their own anxieties in someone else's backyard. This is unfair and selfish. Why should we benefit from the side-effects of innovative technology - cheaper, safer food - and the Third World not? Don't let the Third World develop, give them a bucket and a handfield of grain seems to be their solution.

RCV Nash
Solihull, UK
rcv_nash@hotmail.com

It is most surpring that so-called "green lovers" of developed world always and generously supports anti-biotechnology movement in the developing world. Are they really interested in the "safety" of mankind on the globe? If so, why they are not stopping research in the most sophisticated/deadly areas in nuclear sciences. Today, a few developed nations have the most dangerous and sophisticated nuclear arms that can make the globe empty/ash within a few hours. Race for accumulation of such arms is still going on among rich nations. Are the activists of so-called "green lovers" in developed nations and LDCs think about upcoming dangers from nuclear arms? If so, why they are not active against those issues? Many developed nations have become rich nations today only because of tremendous progress in farm sector due to technological progress through development process. Now the "green lovers" in the same natons are opposing this type of growth process in LDCs.

Thus, "green lovers and patriots" in LDCs should support any tech. progree whether biotech/GMO, if they are good for the development. Therefore the research must be allowed to continue in biotech/GMOs and infact, these new sciences should be strengthened in LDCs. After all agril. scientists are more concern about "green and poor" than any body in the society in LDCs. If biotech/GMOs are really harmful, they are the first citizens of the society to stop such harmful technologies from reaching them to the farmers. There is absolutely no need for any body to prevent agril. scientists to carry out research in advanced sciences. But there is every need for everybody on the globe who are really concern about "green and mankind" to oppose any further research in the proven deadly nuclear science/arms.

Aldas Janaiah
IRRI, The Phillippines
A.Janaiah@CGIAR.ORG

If the activists were of scientific mentality and were fully informed of the scientific merits of what they were fighting againist then sure, activists are needed to ensure that the scientific community does not get carried away with its scientific possibilities. Most GM activists I have seen are neither informed nor are they interested in serious calm debate. They seem to think that if they invoke mass hysteria their cause is served. In additon, these activists have little knowledge if any of plant biology, cytogenetics or genetics so their aim is to fight the unknown devils as they perceive it rather than deal with facts. But I also blame the GM scientists especially MNCs as well since they have made little attempt to counter the allegations by the so called activists. MNCs act as if they are the guilty party. I blame the multinationals more than anyone for this GM debate.

Dr. Shoba Venkatanagappa
Sydney, Australia
shobaven@hotmail.com

Actually the problem is with the lack of knowledge about the GM crops. It is the duty of scientists to make the average person, who doesn't know minimum science, aware of it. GM crops are very important for the vast developing population to produce good yield.

Mahesh Appari
Rajahmundry (a.p)
mahi_a@rediffmail.com

I would say that every coins have two sides. Even though one would say that there are great benefits of growing rice having carotene, the most important thing is that the rice needs to reach the people who are undernourished. I also want to say that I would not like to see vandalism against this technology.

Eapen Suji
Mumbai, India
mat_suji@hotmail.com

Science means speed. Being a science graduate of plant genetics my views on GM crops & research should not be stopped. Offcourse traditional breeding is the safest but not so potentially strong. New research tools (gene transfer and genetic manupulation) is needed for fight against poverty and hunger. Science is only for optimists and research should be friendly for human health. This should be taken in mind by the multinationals and if that happens there is no problem for accepting Golden Rice. The activist movement should be scientific and we have to solve this problems scientifically by sittting at a table.

Anupam Mallik
Kolkata, India
anupam13@rediffmail.com

I do agree with the view that the activities of such groups is bound to impede the pace of research and demoralise the scientists working on related aspects of genetically modified foods. But then I also think that the research areas be confined only to certain categories of foods and post evaluation of such products through limited marketing.It would be desirable to first take the consumers in to confidence, as they alone would be deciding the future of GM foods. Thanks.

Srivastava C.S.
N.C.A. Indore
cencaro@sancharnet.in

I agree with the views leading scientists and government officials that this kind of vandalism impedes research and understanding of the many possible uses of this new technology.

Dr.Dhanashri Shetty
Mumbai
dnshetty@hotmail.com

I have a different opinion regarding activists. There is one Mr. Reddy who thinks that like any other farmer in the world, Indian farmer should be given a chance to decide on his choice regarding better technology. Activists do not think that the world Indian farmer should be given a chance to decide on his choice regarding better technology. People sitting in AC rooms should not decide on his part. Farmers in China have adopted GM crops in a big way thereby cutting costs and getting advantage in the international market. We have to think whether we want to enhance the competitiveness of the Indian farmer in the world market, by giving him a choice to adopt the revolutionary technology (like biotech) or we want to make him handicapped by not allowing him a choice to better products. I am from a farming community in Haryana and I know how agri. has become a losing proposition to the farming community. In an advanced state like Haryana, where there is an absence of better technology and tech. Support, the day is not far when farmers will demand for themselves - these technologies.

The activists, who protest, are not the real representative of the farmers. They are the people who only want cheap publicity and want this biotech revolution to bypass the country. They should mend their ways and try to understand the real concerns of the farming community.

Jitender Maan
Haryana
maan2k@usa.net

Dear Sir,

I think there should be an open discussion on GM food because without applying the Genetic Engineering we can not produce something new which can fulfill the requirement of growing population.

Sundeep Kumar
BHU, Varanasi
sundeepksharma77@rediffmail.com

Respected sir,

Genetically modified food is very good aspect as far as the agriculture revolution is concerned. Yeah, there always have been a debate whenever something comes new. Firstly the oppositers should study the technology and let it be implemented and later on should comment depending upon the results. There is no meaning to give any comments with out results. I am in favour of the technology but not sure about the results. I will be thankful to you if you supply some material regarding the practical impact of this technology on human beings.

Pravin K Naoghare
pravin_naoghare@yahoo.com

Innovation and ideas have always met with resistance from the people who have little knowledge of the subject hence, it becomes moral duty of an inventor to clear these doubts, so that we can have better future.

Sanjay
India
sanjay@iitkgp.ernet.in

As this is the era of technology, only technique can survive in future. Hence I will support the new genetically modified foods because they can only be the future of India's ever increasing food requirement in an increasing population. Another aspect as an agricultural scientist is that the technology should develop such varieties of crops that resist pest, disease, and physiological disorders in order to save input cost of crop production so the farmers get benefit of it.

Prashant Bodake
Nasik
pramegh@rediffmail.com

I strongly agree with you because the population is increasing steadily (at least in developing countries) but land available for cultivation stands almost the same. With the existing fertilizers and pesticides we can't improve our existing productivity in that same ratio (as populuation) at the same time pests improved their resistance- like any thing...So the only solution is GM which promises to feed the hungry.

Mahendragollaputi
Mumbai
mahendragollaputi@yahoo.com

As a professor in plant biotechnology working at an university in US, I happened to be in India at the moment visiting my hometown of Bangalore. I was appalled to see that Bt cotton trials are being uprooted by certain misguided people in Raichur, Karnatka and other places. These trials have been approved by the Government of India and by the State of Karnataka. The farmers who have taken up these trials have done so of their own volition and have been made fully aware of the technology by the company (Mahyco) conducting these trials. Inspite of this there are people who are disrupting these trials.

I wonder if the mob even understands what they are doing. They are being incited by people who have a vested interest in seeing that this technology is not made available to the farmers of India. Bt cotton is approved in six countries and has been grown on millions of acres for the last five years. Thousands of farmers are reaping the benefits of this technology. The products safety has been clearly established. Bt cotton has allowed growers to reduce insecticide use and attain better control insidious pests, which has resulted in increased yields. It is estimated that cotton growers in US reduced insecticide use by 2.7 million lbs and made 15 million fewer insecticide applications per year since the introduction of Bt cotton. The Government of India has approved these trials after examining data from safety studies and prior trials done by the company.

Even if people were opposed to the technology what is happening in Karnataka is clearly an illegal act in defiance of the Govts of India and Karnataka. How will we know if the product works if farmers are not allowed to do the trials? Other states in India are doing the trials. Will India be left behind in adopting this technology?

I sincerely hope that the people, media and policy makers will stongly condemn the action of plot uprooting and the goverment of Karnataka takes strong action to prevent the recurrence of such acts.

C.S. Prakash
Tuskegee University
prakash@tusk.edu

I think activist tactics hinder open debate about GM foods. Because, these activists are local persons and having significant influence on local people. Many of the farmers and even some politicians are not educated enough to analyze the pros and cons of Biotech. And such people will be carried away by the impressive speeches given by local activists. Unless and until we are able to convey the correct information about the Biotech, the activists tactics hinder the open debate.

S.P.Kamath
Bangalore
s.p.kamath@monsanto.com

Recently, whatever protests are observed in India, I think it is due to lack of awareness. Developing countries like India must have GM food!!

To provide nutrient rich, disease-pest resistant crop is essential for the growers. When the Institutes like CSIR is working on the transgenic crops nobody is protesting - but there seems to be protest for MNC's. I think it is a purely political movement. Due to activist tactics people are learning about GM Foods, which creates awareness. If we are able to provide advantages and disvantages of the GM to certain core people, correctly, that will helpful to build the confidence among the farmers!!

There were protests for the Sun as the centre of the universe, Earth's round shape, but you can not stop the truth to come out... and I think GM is also going through the same phase.

Ramkrishna Kolala
Bangalore
ramkola@email.com

No viable and suitable technology can be prevented from reaching it to the farmers in a country like India where market forces ultimately decide the future of technology. By virtue of propaganda either 'for' or 'against' will not serve the purpose. Our history of Green Revolution Technology in the 60s indicate the same. Despite huge furore, farmers and consumers have accepted because of huge demand for such technology during those periods. Another recent example for hybrid rice in India and elsewhere outside China. India, Philippines, Bangladesh, etc. are trying to push hybrid rice since early 90s but ultimately farmers and consumers are not accepting the present rice hybrids because of several constraints, one among them is poor grain quality that did not create demand for grain.

Therefore for GMO foods also, there is no need to bother too much for propaganda by any activists in a country like India where the final acceptability of any technology would be decid! ed by the ultimate users, NOT BY THE ACTIVISTS/SOMEBODY ELSE. This is a market economy under democrtatic set up, unlike China, where users have freedom to choose any variety or hybrid. But government and whole scientific community and industry should see that there will not be any detrimental side-effects by introduction of GMOs to the farmers who can not understand scientific side-effects of GMOs. Thus ethics in science are more important than any propaganda.

Thank you for sharing my views.

A. Janaiah, Social Scientist
IRRI, Philippines
A.Janaiah@cgiar.org