To the Editor:

Re “How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food” (Sunday Review, April 26):

Mark Lynas claims that there is a scientific consensus on the safety of consuming G.M.O. plants. There is nothing intrinsically safe or dangerous when genes from distant species are introduced into plants. Each genetically modified food is a separate entity that must be independently and rigorously tested to ensure its safety.

Unfortunately, current United States regulations do not require such testing, and the majority of studies supporting the writer’s claims have either been funded or produced by industry. To even speak of G.M.O.’s as a single entity that can be called “safe” to consume or good for the environment is entirely unscientific.

SHELDON KRIMSKY

JEREMY GRUBER

New York

The writers are, respectively, chairman and president of the Council for Responsible Genetics. They are co-editors of the book “The G.M.O. Deception.”

To the Editor:

It’s hard to argue that, in the case of an impoverished Bangladeshi farmer, we should ban genetically modified eggplant that may markedly improve his livelihood. Here, science is being used in ways that improve farmers’ lives and, we hope, can spread better nutrition, food security and other benefits to third-world people.