Ian Shears, of Topsham, Devon, UK, said:
It was a sickening moment when through my own research I discovered
that our 118-acre organic farm was less than 1km away from a potential
GMO trial site. What right do these chemical companies have to pollute
our local environment with these organisms. If these products are
going to supposedly feed the third world, where are the drought or
salt resistant crops? What a surprise it is the first products being
trialled are herbicide resistant crops.
Steve Attwood-Wright, of Middlesex University, UK, said:
I am sure that greed not need is the driving force.
David Delaney, of Leominster, UK, said:
I share your concern. I am not too worried about the effect of some
GM proteins on humans except, obviously, for those which have anti-biotics
or confer resistance to anti-biotics. This is sheer madness. I am
much more concerned about the further damage to the environment. Most
people have no idea how devastating Round-up is to all growing things.
Now, if the Agrochemical companies could demonstrate that their GM
systems would guarantee the return of all skylarks, fieldfares, lapwings,
partridges and sparrows to the levels of 50 years ago then I could
be persuaded to support them.
Steven M. Druker, of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, USA,
said:
The Prince of Wales is quite right to be concerned about genetically
modified foods, and his endeavors to stimulate wider public debate
are commendable. These foods not only pose unprecedented risks to
the environment, but to the health of the consumer as well. Our organization
is especially concerned that the threats to food safety are being
irresponsibly ignored by the United States government (and inadequately
appreciated by many governments in the EU, including that of Great
Britain).
Jeff Jenkins, of Hampshire, UK, said:
Very worried about GM food. I've read a lot of the information on
it and have come to the conclusion that I'd like to avoid eating any,
but how? Very few manufacturers are labelling their foods, with the
exception of some own-brand supermarket goods, and even then we are
told that some ingredients (e.g. soya) cannot be guaranteed to be
free of genetically modified materials.
Robert G Anderson, of New Zealand, said:
As a member of the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible
Application of Science and Technology [PSRAST] I would like to endorse
His Royal Highness's comments on the dangers on genetically engineered
food. This industry is being driven entirely from a profit motive
without due regard to human safety. It is an alliance between big
business and bad science. The orchestrated litany of lies being fed
to the public by the giant multinational corporations and made palatable
by the almost equally large PR industry is downright amoral. Instead
of GE and agribusiness, the only real hope for feeding the world is
organic agriculture. GE is now widely deployed and it will take some
time and effort to bring under control, but we have right on our side.
GE is by now more popular - more widely practised - than dangerous
versions of nuclear science every were. But it is profoundly wrong.
Nigel Bowman, aboard the Seismic Survey Vessel Resolution,
off the North Coast of Australia, said:
I totally agree with all of your comments. All of these new developments
modifying any natural resource should be quarantined severely. These
resources have developed over millions of years, delicately balancing
each other. If research is needed on plant life it should not be allowed
to spread into the general habitat; strict rules are required to limit
any tampering with genetics. This could severely jeopardize our future
as a species, destroying the wealth of genetic diversity. Where would
this end ? Would we need to always keep one step ahead of any resistance
to new strains of infection? What effects would this have on poorer
nations where their crops were not immune ? A society that is focused
on growth will always try to cheat the forces of nature.
