Letters to the Editor, June 3, 2013
Alex Lo's column scolding the millions around the world who marched against Monsanto and its genetically modified crops ("Time to modify our stance on GM food", May 28) misses the point entirely.

Alex Lo's column scolding the millions around the world who marched against Monsanto and its genetically modified crops ("Time to modify our stance on GM food", May 28) misses the point entirely.
The question is not whether GMO (genetically modified organism) foods spawned any of the world's recent food crises or even whether they are unsafe to eat (there is little evidence to support either): it is whether corporate interests will be allowed to control the world's food supply and dominate production.
Citing no evidence, Lo claims genetic modification is "at least as safe, if not safer, than conventional crop growing". Yet most developed nations don't consider GMOs safe. In more than 60 countries, including Australia, Japan and the entire EU, there are restrictions or outright bans.
Commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand herbicides and/or produce a pesticide. They are responsible for the emergence of "super weeds" and "super bugs" which can only be killed with ever-more toxic poisons. Some are engineered to produce only sterile seed, forcing farmers to purchase new seed each season and making them doubly hazardous in famine-prone regions.
Monsanto, the world's largest producer of pesticides and herbicides, now wants to turn seeds - a renewable resource since time immemorial - into a patented, non-renewable commodity.
Despite biotech industry promises, no GMO currently on the market offers increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition or any other consumer benefit.