" that the "other Cornell group" isn't making public the genetic changes the same way any business doesn't make public the exact nature of products in development; it's to keep this information out of the hands of competitors. And I think your group's title may be a misnomer: I suspect a lot of growers would be willing to protectnapasag, no dot org involved, by planting vines not susceptible to Pierce's disease. Shutting down research into potential genetic improvements sounds an awful lot like the Prez vetoing stem cell research funds. The only difference is you use fear-mongering and he uses religion to thwart knowledge. "

" I heard aliens and Halliburton were involved too... "

" Government conspiracies, secrecy, things that "may" be happening in our County that "may" have an unknown effect, open ended questions, insinuendo..wait, were we talking about the second shooter on the grassy knoll or how 9/11 was Bush' fault? Oh that's right, we're talking about the evil engeneering of plants by government(evil) funded universities. We all know what happens next, when "PINA"(who?) thinks they've drummed up enough fear of (insert something no one understands that can be made to sound scary here) they'll be asking for money. Welome to the activist business, PINA. No, I do not want to donate to your cause. "

" Recent administrations have refused to listen to their own scientists warnings about the risks of genetically engineered crops in the same way that they ignored and suppressed the findings of their own scientists on global warming. Unfortunately, we have a federal government that is persuaded by large corporations to disavow scientific information that may cut into corporate profit motive, even though by doing so, it is failing to protect the public interest. "

" But I hear that it decreases the huge amount of CO2 greenhouse gas released by wine fermentation. "

" Erica, obviously these tests are not as "secret" as you're implying since you know about them. You should really get more facts before you write such an inflammatory letter. I counted six provocative questions in your letter whose answers could be quite benign. And what is it with these people who "refused to make contact with me." Again you're implying some covert conspiracy. Maybe they were busy or just didn't want to be bothered with envro-whackos such as yourself. "

" Undisclosed test sites should not be allowed in California. For example the grapes modified with genes from a fungus such as those tested in California really need public disclosure because the fungus is known to harm human health. Trichoderma harzianum a fungus used to control plant pests The fungus Trichoderma harzanium has been used as a living pesticide to control plant diseases such as the fungus Botrytis (grey mould) disease of strawberries . Ricard,J and Rciard,T (The ethics of biofungicides , Agriculture and Human values 1997,14,251-8) pointed out that the biofungicide had been implicated in a disease effecting people with compromised immune systems. Guarro,J et al reported a fatal case of Trichoderma harzianum infection in a kidney transplant patient and an infection in a diabetic patient (Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1999,37,3751-55). Trichoderma harzianum isolated from a water damaged building produced a product that damaged sperm cells of mammals and reduced sperm motility (Peltola,J et al Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2001, 67,3269-74). Since Trichoderma harzianum both causes human diseases and produces products injurious to humans and other mammals its use to create genetically modified grapes and these grapes are tested in the California environment the residents of California deserve to know where the tests are taking place in California so that they can respond to any adverse effects of the modified grapes, its pollen or debris. "

" (sssh) be very quiet about this. I'd say it's far past time to track down Gregory Mendel's surviving relatives and kill 'em all, maybe pelt 'em with a little trichoderma harzianum and watch them melt into quivering, useless puddles of protoplasm. You can't be too careful when knowledge threatens to rear its ugly head! "

" It's really sad when individuals don't have a good counter-argument or substantive point to make, so they have to rely on one of the weakest, poorest arguments out there called, "Ad hominem" or "attack the man." "Napkin"? "Envirowacko?" How desperate. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. "

" I don't think it's sad at all. Sad is when a loved one dies, or when someone is diagnosed with a terminal and ghastly illness. However, responses to non-arguments with more non-arguments is just, well, I guess I'd call it plain old human nature. And if "the head of the other Cornell group refused to make contact with me" isn't a poorly veiled disparagement of that Cornell group (they have poor communication skills and are secretive but I am glib and honest!), i.e. an attack on the men in the group, then I don't know what is. The reality, of course, is that I do not know - I am not a lawyer and my rusty Latin is limited to the Catholic celebration of Mass. Mea culpa. "

" Once again Napa is found to be in the stone ages or should I say allowing their pockets to make stupid decisions....A recent judgment 2/07/07 stated, "In a decision broadly affecting field trials of genetically engineered crops a federal district judge ruled yesterday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must halt approval of all new field trials until more rigorous environmental reviews are conducted. Citing potential threats to the environment." Why would anyone in their right mind think this is some left-wing conspiracy? Why are drug dealers required to do years of research to release new drugs, yet farmers can grow crops that haven't had any testing done-strange. But why does the US government pay billions of dollars in subsidies to farmers every year. I grew up in the Midwest and know several people that own land and do nothing while making thousands of dollars from the government a year. Screw welfare, move to the Midwest and buy some land and live off subsidies. When is the US going to wake up and stop protecting those that should not be protected? Just because you have never heard of an organization doesn’t mean it isn’t conducting a valuable service. Anyone who resides in Napa or drinks wine should check out what P.I.N.A is doing for our local environment. Don't be blinded by big businesses. "

" It's too bad that honest debate among differing opinions was the first casuality after this letter was published. This is an important issue that Napa has to deal with. Yes, there are strong opinions on both sides. Let's have this public debate without name calling, bullying, and other testosterone tactics. Farmers are concerned about the death of bees, contaminated farms and drinking water, rogue weeds, suicide among farmers, etc. City-dwellers are concerned about toxins in breast milk, contaminated food, destruction of the food chain. GMO science needs to be classified as a 'dangerous science' and treated as such until proven, beyond any doubt, that it is not! GMO is the nuclear power plant in the backyard. Alarms are required. "

" It is interesting that Ms. Martenson's opinion piece, which argues that the agricultural commissioner should be notified of local trials of Genetically Modified grapes, to ensure they are conducted safely, which is also what the U.S. inspector general recommends, is branded as conspiratorial. What is conspiratorial about creating an oversight and enforcement mechanism for ensuring researchers are doing what they say they are going to do (avoid contamination of the environment) in their notifications to the USDA? "

" Erica and I carried out a lengthy and civil correspondence. However, she was not kind enough to inform me that she was interviewing me for an article, nor did she reveal that she represented an organization, P.I.N.A. She is certainly entitled to her opinion, but I find that her memory of our correspondence is selective. For instance, Erica says that I stated that "bagging flowers would add greatly to the expense of the trials". The context of her question to me was in relation to pollen movement into wild populations in New York. My response was "In the area of our trial, there are wild vines of Vitis riparia. They flower a full 2 weeks before our transgenic V. vinifera vines. They are also located more than 300 feet from our vineyard. There is no chance of pollen from our vines resulting in seed on these V. riparia vines. Bagging flowers under these conditions is not necessary, and would add greatly to the expense of such trials, while providing no additional guarantee of isolation." Erica complains that there is little to no oversight of transgenic trials. It was surprising to her when I told her that State and County officials are and have been aware of my trials in New York, California, and Texas, and that my trials have been inspected each year, including 3 inspections in New York in 2006. No problems noted. Erica erroneously notes that some existing permits are good until 2014. This is no longer true. All multi-year notifications had to be renewed in 2007. They will be renewed annually, and with sufficient environmental study, it may be possible to obtain permits for periods of 2 to 5 years. I'm very concerned about the environment, too. But I approach that concern in a different way. Would you rather continue to fight an uphill battle against fungal diseases of grapevines via pesticide applications, or would you consider pest-resistant transgenic vinifera grapes? Genetic engineering is but one approach that could be used to reduce chemical usage in the environment. With some diseases like Pierce's disease, there are no chemical means for disease control; the genetic engineering strategy is one viable option. By the way, I'm all for an open an honest dialog about this, as Erica can confirm, but I can only carry out such a dialog within the limits of the rest of my responsibilities at Cornell. As to my Cornell colleague, perhaps Erica has not given him/her enough time to respond. I understood that a response was forthcoming. "

" I was not "interviewing for an article." I am not a journalist. I am an ordinary citizen who happens to coordinate a group of other citizens who are concerned about this issue. I was writing to Dr. Reisch trying to ascertain what is happening in our area with respect to GE field trials. When I realized the extent of what could be taking place here in our local area, I felt an obligation to inform others and to open up a dialogue within our local community. When Dr. Reisch stated that he didn't believe bagging flowers was necessary in the New York trial in which the experimental and commercial grapes were spaced 300 feet, I deduced that he wouldn't feel it necessary if the grapes were spaced 500 feet, as they were here in the unspecified "coastal county." I question his premise that wind and insects cannot transmit pollen at these distances. I also believe that if there is any possibility that researchers should be erring on the side of precaution. The UC Davis permits state they are valid until 2014. Anyone can see them online at the Information Systems for Biotechnology website. While you're there, you can see all of the other things, from persimmons to strawberries, and everything else under the sun, that researchers are GMOing and putting out into the environment through their field tests. Lastly, if other less risky means of controlling Pierce's disease or other agricultural problems are available, and they are, those should be explored and utilized. Currently, scientists have a new technology, Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) that greatly accelerates traditional plant breeding, which they are currently using to develop rootstock that is resistant to Pierce's disease. That is the type of research that should be encouraged and supported, not one that physicians and scientists have stated poses health and environmental risks, and not one that is unwanted by most consumers. "

" According to the U.S. Inspector General audit, the USDA visiting Dr. Reisch's field tests each year (and three times in one year in New York) is certainly not the norm. Moreover, that the USDA determined that everything was on the up and up is not reassuring. The USDA has allowed field trials of crops, such as rice and safflower, that have been genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs to be grown in open fields, even though the Union of Concerned Scientists has stated that these trials pose a serious health and environmental risk. Many individuals and organizations have lost faith in the USDA's ability to protect the public with respect to this issue, which is why state legislation has been proposed to have the local agriculture commissioner involved. "

" But what about all the greenhouse CO2 gas given off during fermentation? This has got to be a major contributor to Global Hot Air! "

" First of all, Erica, you make it clear that there are very few secrets about what's going on in genetic engineering research (just check out the Information Systems in Biotechnology web site), contrary to the title of your article. You found out that at least one researcher is willing to entertain your questions - if you were patient, you'd have found out that others were willing to correspond, too! It's not in my job description, but I felt it was my duty to inform the public and make clear my good intentions for health and the environment. I can also help make it clear that Federal, State, and County officials have all been informed of my trials of genetically engineered grapes; isn't that what you say isn't happening? I'm not being singled out; this is part of the ongoing routine of getting a notification approved. On the government's Biotechnology Regulatory Services web site, you'll find the precise procedures used, and the modified regulations that say that multi-year notifications are no longer valid. One must apply for renewals every year. Finally, we have one of the very best food systems in the world. No, it's not perfect, and there is always room for improvement, but it's hard to argue with success. That success includes the ongoing and widespread consumption of a multitude of products from plant genetic engineering, and these products have an excellent track record of contributing to reductions in insecticide usage and production of healthy food products. "

" Dr. Reisch, as you well know, citizens can access very limited information from that website-- the institution conducting the field trial, the organism being modified, the gene being used (maybe), the state where it's being tested, and the date the permit was issued and expires. What doesn't it tell you? Perhaps the gene being used, exactly where and how the crops are being grown, and how they are disposed of. That is pertinent information that the public has the right to know. I also disagree with your statement that the U.S. has one of the safest food systems in the world. To whom are you comparing the U.S.? Certainly not the industrialized world. For example, Bovine Growth Hormone was approved for use in the U.S. and not in Canada nor Europe, due to the increased use of antibiotics in cows injected with Bovine Growth Hormone and the increased cancer risk. Unfortunately, many people have not just lost faith in the USDA but also in the FDA. All of these U.S. governmental agencies seem to have succumbed to the same political pressure as other politicians within our federal government. The FDA's approval of genetically engineered crops is yet another example of its failure to look out for the public interest. Not only does most of the industrialized world require the labeling of GE crops, but many third world countries will not even accept GE crops as food aid. Yet, Americans are eating them without their knowledge on a regular basis. The type of discussion you and I have been having via email for some time now needs to be had in our local community in an open, public setting. Several people in our community, both vintners and general community members, have discussed the need for a community GMO forum. We welcome your participation, if you are interested and able to come out. Please let us know. "

" Erica - As you know, some of the information about g.e. trials are not made public because of safety issues. There are outlaws who have burned down labs and destroyed field research plots as a form of protest. These criminal acts are the primary reason for some level of secrecy; it's to protect legal research and the people who are involved. Regarding food safety, everyone has access to statistics, and you can verify the safety of our food supply. How often do you hear about people getting ill from the food they eat in this country? The last big news story concerned outbreaks from fresh spinach consumption presumed to be due to use of manure as fertilizer. I can't think of an example of such a scale attributed to GMO crops. You complain about politics, but labeling is an entirely political issue. If the issue is one of safety, a crop shouldn't reach the market. Once it reaches the market, why require the extra expense of labeling all products with GMO ingredients? And how much GMO content would require labeling? That's another political issue. Labeling isn't based on science. If you want GMO freedom, the organic food section is available to consumers. Regarding your proposed conference - an open forum is a good idea. Such a conference took place in January, 2005. I was invited to attend, but had prior commitments. The Jan. 2005 conference was sponsored by the Napa Valley Grape Growers Association. Who will be organizing the conference you propose? I don't believe things have changed dramatically in 2 years, so I don't know what more can be accomplished. If a conference is organized in 2007, I hope the organizers will use the resources at UC Davis and elsewhere in California to provide an open, honest atmosphere for discussion. "

" The labeling of GMOs is partly a political and consumer rights issue, since the most recent poll shows that 94% of Americans want GM foods labeled. However, it is a health and safety issue as well. A crop shouldn't make it to the market, unless it's been proven safe; "shouldn't" is the operative word. Unlike medicines which must go through animal and then human feeding trials before being put on the market and even then are often later pulled due to health problems, developers of GM crops are not required to perform any safety tests whatsoever. Furthermore, not being labeled, if people are getting sick as a result, no one would be able to attribute it to genetic engineering. Eating organic is one way to avoid GM foods, but organic crops are becoming contaminated by GM crops through cross-pollination, taking away this option. In addition, many people can't afford organic foods. Eating non-GM foods should not be a class privilege. A lot of information has come out on GMOs in the past two years. In fact, a lot of information has come out in recent months, including information about Monsanto Corporation covering up scientific evidence regarding the health risks of its GM crops. So, a local discourse is certainly relevant and needed-- one that includes grape growers and vintners, as well as community stake holders, such as home gardeners, environmentalists, physicians, and consumers. "

" I agree that a crop shouldn't reach the market unless it's safe, but "shouldn't" is the operative word. Unlike medicines which require animal and then human feeding trials before they are released on the market and even then are often later recalled once safety issues arise, no safety testing of GMOs is required. The labeling of GMOs is partly a political and consumer rights issue, since the most recent poll shows that 94% of Americans want them labeled. However, it is also a health and safety issue; since GM foods aren't labeled any health problems associated with them are impossible to trace. A lot of information has come out on GMOs in the past two years. Even just in the last few months, a lot of information has come forth, including information about Monsanto Corporation covering up scientific evidence demonstrating the lack of safety of GM crops it developed that are on the market. More local, public discourse on the subject that includes grape growers and vintners, as well as community stake holders, such as home gardeners, environmentalists, consumers, and so forth, is certainly relevant and needed. "