The Dutch, French, Swiss and British are not hungry countries and perhaps can afford an embargo (on Bt crops), although "Indian Corn" might be a little hard to swallow. Anything that gives the U.S. an edge is automatically BAD.

The media is so attuned to scares that one unprofessional report (on Monarchs) outweighs reams of good data, and when the Naders, NIMBYS and BANANAS get a hold of it, all hell breaks loose. Example: BGH milk in Wisconsin.

My hope is that the U.N. is more far sighted, because until zero population growth is attained, the Green Revolution is the alternative to starvation.

John Fox
Kewaunee, Wis.

As scientists, we have to weigh the threat of spreading worldwide human starvation. I'm sure that most of the opposition force belongs one way or another to any of the multiple New Age associations (I prefer "New Dark Age"), whose only purpose is opposing all that is named scientific progress, perhaps impelled by the universal fear of change.

What would we prefer? Many thousands of hungry children dropping dead because many thousands of voracious caterpillars devoured the food, or healthy children? There can be no argument! We would prefer the last option, wouldn't we? We've heard nothing about how genetically modified food harms human health. All we have heard is that men can improve in days, months or years what nature does in the course of millions of years.

Nasif Nahle
San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon
Mexico

Granted, scientific progress can sometimes be painful due to mankind's equal capacities for good, evil and ignorance. But to shy from the promise of the future based on fear is immature. We as a race (the human one) should continue to explore new technologies and applications with as much wisdom as is available. An infant must risk many a scrape and bruise while learning to walk, but walk they must before becoming an adult. In a nutshell, engineered crops have much potential benefit, and it isn't like we're talking Gattaca here.

Dana Durand
Everett, Wash.

For centuries, man has been modifying livestock and food crops in the cause of improving yields, size, taste, texture, crop quality and just about any other useful or pleasing attribute. Whether by direct manipulation or by artificial selection, agriculture has had the ability to design the crops it grows and the farm animals it husbands.

When science provides a faster method of producing insect resistant crops via genetic engineering, what difference is there between breeding a crop, hybridizing a crop or genetically altering a crop? All of these routes can produce the same desired result. True, pollen from a Bt crop could harm local insects. So could crop spraying and field burning. The mere act of farming is destructive to parts of local ecologies. But it is a given that such activities are also vital to sustaining our civilization as we currently know it. So where do we draw the line?

We now have a brave new world facing us. Just one of the many tools that science has presented us is genetic engineering. How we use it will be debated for years. But I urge man not to turn his back on a tool just because it can be misused or abused. Rather, face the responsibilities of using such technologies reasonably.

Is crop genetics a reasonable use? If it is shown that ecologies are not harmed any more than they are by other technologies, then yes, use genetics. But to casually lump such use as being on par with some science fiction horror film is ludicrous. I can just hear my TV spewing the title of some old black and white film: "The Revenge of the Giant Mutant Spud." Perhaps Hollywood would like it!

Bill Bethea
Baton Rouge, La.

Genetically altered crops fall into the same category as irradiated foods. They are buzz words carrying a burden of connotations that serve to frighten people that know nothing of the science behind them. Say "radiation" to the average person and they think of giant, rampaging ants in 1950's B movies or of some frightful apparition from the X-Files. "Genetically altered" brings to mind some horrible mutant, again reinforced by pop culture pseudo-science. Similar irrationality pops up again and again, often fueled by scare tactics geared to sell products. (The ad that touts 99.99 percent of "germs" killed in your wash, although your body teems with bacteria, springs to mind.) As long as the general public remains ignorant of science and is motivated by perceived fears, scientific progress will be questioned and opposed. More must be done to improve peoples' understanding of the world around them, and this should start in our schools, where money should be spent to teach chemistry instead of buying football uniforms.

Matthew Moroney
Fresno, Calif.