Letter: Food common sense
Saturday 29 May 1999
The second answer means the food may or may not be harmful.
If proof that a food is harmless is needed before anyone eats it, we will never have any new foods. The answer is to use judgement and common sense - the qualities that would have told us that feeding animal parts to herbivores was asking for trouble.
If we take this approach, we will accept foods altered to make them taste better, but will reject foods made lethal to insects on the grounds that it is highly likely that some people will, at the very least, be allergic to them, and that they will upset the ecological balance.
Similarly, plants altered to enable them to survive heavy doses of herbicide are liable to have some harmful herbicide residues, and to have serious ecological effects, and should not, in my judgement, be grown or eaten in Britain. However, no one has a monopoly of intuition on these matters.
Dr ERNEST RUDD
Artists unveils new exhibition inspired by Hastings beachart
Arts & Ents blogs
- 1 Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Pro-Russian rebel 'admits to shooting down plane'
- 2 Israel has discovered that it's no longer so easy to get away with murder in the age of social media
- 3 Israel-Gaza conflict: The myth of Hamas’s human shields
- 4 Amy Winehouse unpublished 2004 interview: ‘Ten years from now I’ll be 30, so I’ll maybe have one baby’
- 5 Dutch paedophile club to fight their ban at the European Court of Human Rights
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Vladimir Putin is given 'one last chance' to end hostilities in Ukraine
The 'scroungers’ fight back: The welfare claimants battling to alter stereotypes
The truth about conspiracy theories is that some require considering
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Massive rise in sale of British arms to Russia
Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: victims’ bodies bundled in black bags and loaded onto trains