HIGHLIGHTING CBAC NOT THE RIGHT APPROACH

I am writing in response to the April 11 article "Canadians Need More Info to Decide About GMOs." The writer is probably quite correct in this assumption, but highlighting the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) is certainly not the correct way to approach this problem.

The CBAC is not a public body; it was appointed by and answers to the Biotechnology Ministerial Co-ordinating Committee, which is composed of ministers of industry, agriculture and agri-food, health, environment, fisheries and oceans, natural resources, and foreign affairs and international trade. The CBAC is housed in the office of the Canadian Biotech Strategy within Industry Canada, the agency charged by the government with promoting biotechnology.

From its inception, the biotech project in Canada has been marked by extreme and unseemly haste, just as the practice of genetic engineering has been lauded for its speed, as if speed were a self-evident good. It is driven by the wishes of corporate biotechnology and often slants its publications to favour this point of view. For example, in the preamble, the CBAC report states that "this genetic engineering is more precise than randomly creating mutations because the basis for the change is understood both at the DNA and the protein level." This partial truth represents a wilfully misleading statement.

Although it is true that the DNA construct that is introduced into the recipient plants is generally well characterized, the actual events that lead to the incorporation of the construct into the genome and its subsequent expression constitute a "black box." At present, it is impossible to control the site of the insertion of the novel DNA or the number of copies of the construct that become incorporated.

Instead of the CBAC, I recommend your readers turn to one or both of two recent reports by two panels of experts: the report of the committee set up by the Royal Society of Canada (www.rsc.ca) and the report of a committee of experts set up by the European Union and the United States, with Nobel Laureate Norman Borlag, pioneer of the Green Revolution, and Gordon Conway, head of the Rockefeller Foundation, as participants (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/biotech/biotech.htm).

Both committees highlighted with references the inadequacy of the testing used to establish the safety of foods derived from genetically engineered organisms and said there should be more testing before we proceed with commercialization. Both committees also recommended labelling, so that consumers would, at the very least, have a choice.

Prof. Ann Oaks
Department of Botany (Retired)

TRANSLATE REPORT INTO PLAIN ENGLISH

I found the April 11 @Guelph article about the report on GMO information pretty tough sledding because of the turgid language and misuse of terminology. The worst example is the one highlighted in the article: "A positive overall predisposition to GM foods is a desirable cognitive state for consumers, not to convince them to use GM foods, but rather to positively predispose them to search for and process specific information about GM foods so that they become neutrally informed."

How can a positive predisposition to something be a cognitive state? A predisposition in favour of something is an emotive or evaluative state having nothing to do with cognition. And what does "neutrally informed" mean? It sounds like it should mean the opposite of positively or negatively informed, but these terms don't make any sense either.

The report also refers to various "heuristics," a term that is supposed to refer to a method of discovery. But what does the report mean when it refers to "the 'don't buy' heuristic"? Your reporter would have done us a greater service if he had tried to translate the report into plain English.

I did, however, gain the impression that the report recommends there should be more information disseminated about GM foods. I agree with this recommendation and look forward to a lively and balanced debate in such publications as @Guelph.

Just one question. The report recommends that the CBAC establish "a comprehensive communications program that would be interactive, participatory and proactive and would feature a Web site, television advertising, targeted information kits, press kits and exhibits." Would I be right in assuming that the CBAC plans to produce television advertising that raises concerns about the use of GM foods? If so, I am delighted. But if not, how can the program be described as interactive and participatory?

Prof. William Hughes
Department of Philosophy (Retired)

A DARK DAY FOR DEMOCRACY

On April 20, I travelled to Quebec City with a busload of students, faculty and staff, under the auspices of CUPE local 3913. After 10 hours on the highway, we reached Quebec City at sunrise Saturday. Throughout the morning, we watched barrages of tear gas saturate the slopes of fortress Quebec.

We marched together in Saturday afternoon's spirited and colourful parade, staying many blocks away from the fence. To go any closer would have risked leading the entire demonstration into thick clouds of tear gas.

After the parade, many of us, peaceful but resolute, chose to walk up the Quebec streets through the gas clouds. With my eyes and throat stinging, I came close enough to see the phalanx of troops arrayed behind the fence. This barrier, ostensibly built to protect the Summit delegates, served as a sanctuary from which the police could shower tear gas and rubber bullets indiscriminately. From 50 feet away, I aimed a compact camera at the row of helmeted police. One officer responded by aiming his tear-gas launcher at me, as if to say: "Take one more step and I'll let you have it!"

This was not police "restraint." It was a campaign of intimidation designed to curtail the freedom of citizens to dissent. The enthusiasm, good humour and commitment of the marchers give me much hope, but April 21 was a dark day for Canadian democracy.
I am proud that so many members of our campus community expressed their commitment to justice and democracy by participating in the arduous trip to Quebec City.

Prof. David Josephy
Chemistry and Biochemistry