Sir, - The recent and very welcome publication by the Department of Environment of the paper on "GMOs and the Environment" is intended to give us all an opportunity to state our views. A strange feature of this debate is that, whereas environmentalists seem all to be against this technology, the experience to date is that the environment is significantly improved by their use.
The environmental benefit arises because of the huge reductions in pesticide use on GMO crops. For instance, of the 5,600 American cotton farmers using transgenic seed in 1997, 70 per cent did not use any pesticide. Herbicide resistant varieties also significantly reduce the application of weedkillers.
While I am generally solidly on the same side as the environmental lobby, I find it difficult to ignore such environmental benefits in weighing up the evidence.
The counter argument is that genetic engineering is a fundamental change in crop breeding, and will alter that are now "natural" crops. As a horticulturist, I am very aware that nature has little to do with the major crops we now grow. All are the result of dramatic intervention by man, using a variety of breeding techniques. Genetic engineering is the latest of these techniques and may prove one of the most beneficial. It has, after all, been used for almost 20 years to produce chemicals and pharmaceuticals and for five years in growing crops and foods.
Can we logically, or even emotionally, pass up environmental benefits because of highly theoretical dangers? The consultation paper does not, after all, suggest that we open the door to any and all GMOs. The proposed legislation would introduce a system whereby each proposed crop would be judged on its individual merits and risks.
We all would wish to eliminate pesticides in our foods and environment. This technology could well be the means by which we can do so. Cautious acceptance of the technology seems to make environmental sense to me. - Yours, etc., Eoin Ryan, TD,
Vavasour Square, Sandymount, Dublin 4.