Cheating Mother Nature

Europeans look askance at genetically modified (GM) food not because they advocate a fuzzy respect for Mother Nature, as Lee M. Silver claims, but rather because they face the hard economics of choice (“The God Effect,” April 5). Free-market capitalists try to justify the idea that their way of doing business provides greater choice to the consumer, and that free choice is really all that most Europeans want. Europeans are willing to allow GM foods into the marketplace as long as they are clearly indicated as such on their labels. The argument that it is physically impossible to keep GM and non-GM products separate is lazy and dishonest. GM food producers want to eliminate choice because they know that, given the choice, most people will not purchase GM food. That’s why there have been attempts to ban food labels that mark a product as “hormone-free” or GM-free. This is why the Bush administration opposes the separation and tracking of exported GM food. Europeans are leery of a government that trumpets its free-market credentials when defending the right to sell GM products but denies consumers their right to choose. Stephen Roth Brussels, Belgium

I noticed in Italy, where I lived until a few years ago, several fruit stalls sold pomodori cilegiana, or cherry tomatoes. These have become a craze during the past decade. I found the size of these miniature tomatoes suspect, and my suspicions were confirmed when I learned that they were developed in an Israeli Agricultural Research Center! They are as genetically modified as you can get, but no one complains about them in southern Europe. When the United States wants to export its genetically modified grain, everyone protests America’s promotion of unnatural food. Meanwhile, we’ve been eating “unnatural” food in Europe for a long time. Kristen Skullerud Brussels, Belgium

The writer of your special report, Lee M. Silver, cannot seem to contain his enthusiasm for genetically modified growth or understand why “left-leaning European intellectuals” are not equally enthused. He shrugs off Europe’s lackluster enthusiasm as an apparently “deep-seated sense of spirituality… that encompasses all of Mother Nature.” Maybe I can help him better understand the European perspective. First, a global takeover by a few strains of genetically modified crops will drastically reduce grain biodiversity, thus increasing the chances that a virus or fungus can destroy a large percentage of the world’s crops. Second, the Earth is made up of a complex web of organisms and interrelationships that not even our best scientists truly understand. We already see cases of unintended side effects, such as cross-pollination with weeds, a phenomenon that makes the plants resistant to herbicide. What other surprises lie in wait? Once you let a genetically modified plant out of the laboratory, you can’t issue a product recall. I may not be a European intellectual, but I get very nervous when valid, long-term arguments against genetically modified crops are drowned out by protechnology hype. Jim Rudolf Nyon, Switzerland

Lee M. Silver has rightly faulted the religious view of the conservatives for their confusion in equating science with religion. Religion, a wonderful product of early human civilization, belongs to a different category than science. The principles of both religion and science ought to be allowed to progress within their respective realms of human endeavor. Left alone, they complement each other. Do the Buddhists and Hindus fare better in Asia because of their less-cumbersome spiritual beliefs (as suggested by Silver)? Not necessarily. Most Asians would have no qualms about using scientific products that could alleviate their poverty. But for some, science could become another religion–spiritual or not. Tan Boon Tee Terengganu, Malaysia

According to Lee M. Silver, life is just a chemical formula, and science is above God–it may even be God–but it should not be constrained by moral compunction. Silver graciously concedes that religion and spirituality are all right in their place but should not become “cumbersome.” His science is a wild horse without a bridle, galloping toward a precipice–with free rein and no caution. We have many examples from history (the Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele and his medical experiments) and horror fiction (Dr. Moreau’s island, the Frankenstein story) of the consequences of science without moral restraint or guidelines. Rodney Schulling Chisinau, Moldova

The European approach to human genetic technology, agricultural biotechnology and the environment is based on the “precautionary principle, namely, the proof that an emerging technology is safe for people and for the environment must be provided by the proponents of that technology, not its opponents. Silver’s prediction that genetic enhancements will eventually lead to two noninterbreeding subspecies of Homo sapiens equates European environmental activism with American religious conservatism because of their mutual opposition to certain kinds of genetic modification. He writes that the “phobias” held by segments of both societies will stymie progress in the West and will allow Asians to fill the gap. I find such a comparison of European Greens with U.S. religious fundamentalists ridiculous–it’s a rhetorical tool that will inflame and enrage many people. W. Malcolm Byrnes Rome, Italy

Your April 5 articles on science reveal a marked difference between the American and European views on progress and risks. Besides a careful evaluation of possible risks imposed by new products, the precautionary principle must also include an independent assessment of the relevance of the product. What are the benefits of marketing a product that poses a certain risk? It is impossible to guarantee the absence of risks when marketing a new product and yet, we can reduce the risk to zero by not allowing the product on the market. At a closer look, most new products are really unnecessary for a better world. The problem is that Americans seem to stress growth in business and the GDP as a goal and a benefit in itself, while Europeans are more inclined to favor their own and the environment’s well-being and safety, and this can be evaluated in monetary terms only up to a point. Jorgen S. Norgard Copenhagen, Denmark

Where Does the Buck Stop?

Isn’t it sad that a commission formed at taxpayers’ expense to help the U.S. government find a way to prevent another 9/11 has deteriorated into a blame game with political finger-pointing of the meanest kind (“The Insider,” April 5)? The 9-11 Commission will be unsuccessful if its mission is to find a person, government agency, administration or political party guilty of some wrongdoing or oversight. No one could have prevented 9/11. Let’s start behaving maturely and positively and try to find better ways to keep Americans safe. Carol Thurston Cherry Hill, New Jersey

What did the Clinton administration do to fight terrorism? It stopped attacks on the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. Building, the FBI’s New York office, a plot to kill the pope and Bush the elder, and the plot to blow up Los Angeles International Airport at the millennium. Most important, those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were caught, tried and convicted the old-fashioned way, with lawyers, trials and evidence. Clinton didn’t need the Patriot Act to do that. Sue Doerr Vancouver, Washington

I question Clarke’s motives. Could it be sour grapes and an election year that prompt him to speak now? Or is it to sell his book? Clarke is an opportunist who is politicizing 9/11, yet turns around and accuses the Bush administration of doing the same. What a slap in the face it must be to those who lost their loved ones on that sad day. I’ll vote for President Bush because he wants to make sure this tragedy does not recur. Kim Rinker Castro Valley, California

Watching the administration’s reaction to Richard Clarke’s testimony before the 9-11 Commission leaves me in complete despair. Who in their right mind would now come forth with any information critical of the administration? We have seen what’s happened to Clarke and know that anybody can be viciously trashed and made a pariah. Americans have lost the future services of one of our most experienced antiterrorist experts. Clarke is now so highly toxic that he probably cannot work again for the government. How tragic and disgusting. Alan Fleishman San Carlos, California

NEWSWEEK, are you assisting in the character assassination of Richard Clarke? Remarks such as “Clarke’s social skills have always been limited” are gratuitous and inane. Clarke had the “social skills” to apologize to the families of the 9/11 victims. Dan Wick Woodland, California

Through eight long years of the Clinton administration and eight short months of Bush’s, America failed to invade Afghanistan, a country that harbored terrorists who might have committed terrorist acts. For failing to invade Afghanistan so that 9/11 might have been prevented, we accuse President Bush of acting irresponsibly. Two years later, the U.S. launches an invasion against a country with a history of attacking its neighbors, using chemical weapons, violating 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, circumventing sanctions to acquire billions of dollars to fund its illegal activities and that appeared to be building or obtaining weapons of mass destruction. And for invading Iraq before something devastating happens we accuse the Bush administration of acting irresponsibly. What have I missed? Can the president be equally irresponsible both for not invading Afghanistan based on limited information (primarily obtained and not acted upon by the previous administration) and for invading Iraq based on more extensive information? Allen Markham Caldwell, New Jersey

Whereas 9/11 can be chalked up to complacency by both the Clinton and the Bush administrations, the ramp-up to the war with Iraq cannot. Americans are entitled to an accounting of the decisions and events that resulted in this seemingly needless war that has undercut our position around the world and done little, if anything, to weaken the terrorist network. The reluctance of the administration to speak openly about these issues, combined with the very credible and specific testimony by Richard Clarke, leaves one with little choice but to conclude that invading Iraq was a mistake of monumental proportions that will continue to kill our young and plunge us further into an already record national debt, with little to show for all this sacrifice. Paul W. Rosenberger Manhattan Beach, California

Condi Rice’s testimony showed that her conceptual thinking is entirely based on state-to-state relations; she’s trapped in her academic box. She considered subinterstate matters, no matter how momentous, to be beneath her and seems incapable of making a paradigm shift even in this age of terrorism. Her academic thinking is reflected in her sophistry: blaming the Bush administration’s inaction on the distinctions between “strategic” and tactical responses, insisting that the warning memos were “historical,” not “specific” or “actionable” (despite warnings about suspicious activities concerning flight schools and imminent hijackings). How frustrating for Clarke to work under her when she turned a deaf ear to his repeated dire warnings! Her attempt at “intellectualizing” the tragic failure shows a callous disregard for the truth and an inability to admit guilt or failure. She has yet to express a word of regret or sorrow. No one on the 9-11 Commission grilled her on her failure to see nonintergovernmental issues as worthy of her attention, until they were past her control. She is overrated: under her guidance, America has screwed up its relations with most of the world. Rice’s cultural insensitively has sucked America into a terrorist black hole from which there seems to be no escape. Philip Yeung Kowloon, Hong Kong