Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Re “Genetically
Engineered Distortions,” by Pamela C. Ronald and James E.
McWilliams (Op-Ed, May 15), which says critics have “demonized” this
technology needed to help people in the poorest countries:

I think that there are many in the organic food movement who recognize
that genetic engineering has a role to play in the future of food. But
concerns about what it should be, and who should be making that
decision, are valid.

I am all for nonprofit groups and university researchers working to
alleviate starvation in the third world. I trust their motivations and
scientific integrity. I have no such faith in agribusiness.

Traditional small family farming, with natural fertilizers and crop
rotation, should be the starting point for discussion, not viewed as
some fringe agenda. Organic farmers are not wrong to want to hang on to
the gains of thousands of years of agricultural learning, the benefits
of biodiversity and foods’ naturally adaptive systems.

When a challenge arises that exceeds the limits of traditional farming,
seeking solutions through genetics is appropriate.

But large-scale monoculture farming inhibits the ability of small
farmers to choose their own methods or crops. Entire regions become
dependent on Roundup, Monsanto’s pesticide for genetically engineered
crops.

I am not afraid of technology, but I am distrustful of the motivations
of Monsanto and its ilk.

Ross Outten
Chicago, May 15, 2010

The writer is a chef.