Tragedy of a common error?
I'm afraid your passion for finding something to squawk about has poisoned your perception or destroyed your memory.

In the issue of Vol. 14, No. 1, on page 13, under the headline "Genetic Engineering in Your Mouth," you indignantly report that "60-70 percent of the foods on US grocery shelves now contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs)."

The situation is far worse than that (if "worse" is the justified adjective). Almost all of the plant food we eat is from plants that human beings significantly modified long before they discovered how to write.

Of course, we have no written record of the large early improvements that were made by plant breeders who understood the genetic consequences of "selection" long before they could write about it.

People who want to abstain from eating GMOs will have to eat only genuinely wild plants and animals. (Well, that would solve the population problem for sure.) Good luck -- may your reading improve.

Garrett Hardin
Santa Barbara, CA

Editor's Note: Wild plants and animals have arguably been genetically modifying themselves for eons in the sense Hardin uses the word here, if Darwin is to be believed, so eating them wouldn't help either. What we see here is one predictable result of linguistic imprecision. In common use, "genetically modified organisms" means organisms that have had means beyond the usual breeding, selection, and hybridization used to change their basic heritable characteristics. How exactly does one hybridize tobacco with a lightning bug? By gene-splicing, which is only recently possible. This capability to mix wildly disparate genes is wholly new, as is the risk the capability carries with it. However we frame the debate, whether we decide it's just fine, or worth the risks, to continue this activity - and more to the point, how much care, supervision, and accountability we demand of those who do it - it's only honest to acknowledge that there's something going on here that isn't in the same league as Burbank's spuds.

Scapecats
We are writing in response to an item in the news section of the Fall 1998 issue citing a University of Wisconsin study concluding that housecats pose a threat to wild birds. While it is inarguable that cats occasionally kill birds and small mammals, they can hardly be the ones held responsible for reducing the populations of threatened and endangered species. That responsibility falls squarely onto the shoulders of the human species, which has overtaken vast amounts of natural habitat, forcing nesting birds and other forms of wildlife onto the endangered lists, a fact supported by US Fish and Wildlife reports.

While Alley Cat Allies works diligently to prevent overpopulation of stray and feral cats by working closely with their caretakers, veterinarians and rescue and control organizations, we must protest them being made scapegoats for the loss of wildlife that we ourselves have caused.

An article in the January 15, 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) by Gary Patronek, VMD, PhD, effectively refutes such overblown claims that cats are responsible for devastation of wildlife and extinction of other species. We urge those who make such claims to read not only his article, but also the articles and studies cited by him.

In a Worldwatch Institute publication dated May 1998, Losing Strands in the Web of Life: Vertebrate Declines and the Conservation of Biological Diversity, biologist John Tuxill states: "The leading culprits in the decline of birds are a familiar set of interrelated problems all related to human activity: habitat alteration, over-hunting and over-collecting, exotic species invasions, and chemical pollution of the environment. Habitat loss is by far the leading factor - over half of all threatened bird species are in trouble because of the fragmentation of … habitats."

We at Alley Cat Allies hope that Earth Island Journal, a publication that takes pride in its quality scientific and environmental reporting, will not continue to make cats a scapegoat for a situation that is not of their making. Educated conservationists must realize that threats to endangered species can only be answered by compassion for all species. We must cultivate a greater understanding of the impact we as humans have and the imbalance of nature we have caused, threatening all forms of life on planet Earth.

Louise Holton
Alley Cat Allies
Washington, D.C.

Editor's Note: No one here is scapegoating cats. Cats are not "to blame" for bird deaths. Blame is a human concept. Rather, we see cats as yet another human impact on our environment. Cats cannot stop hunting; they thus bear none of the moral responsibility for the damage in which they are involved. It is the cats' human custodians who bear the responsibility for the damage to the environment the cats cause.

While other factors may produce a higher overall loss of birds than do outdoor cats, the simple fact is that cats are the one factor over which the average person has some control. And whether it's millions, or "only" hundreds of thousands of birds killed by cats, that's damage that our wild bird populations cannot further absorb.

It is precisely compassion for all beings, including cats, that prompts groups like the American Bird Conservancy to advocate keeping cats indoors.

Errata:
In the most recent issue of EIJ, we wrongly listed Gary North as a resource for information on Y2K. We do recommend people check out <www.garynorth.com>, but solely as an example of how the most reactionary elements in our society are using the Y2K issue to advance their unpleasant agendas. North, who's contributed greatly to the increased climate of hatred in North America (especially as regards to gay and lesbian people, and women) bears watching. But we regret giving the impression that North is a reliable source of information on any subject.