Regulation of Biotech

* Regarding Henry I. Miller’s “Regulation Is Killing Biotech Innovation,” Commentary, Sept. 23:

The Machiavellian and sinister forces at the EPA who operate under the guise of environmental good-guy watchdog agency for the benefit of the public are, in my opinion, the enviro-tyrants, whose primary objective is to strangle small business with the noose of over-regulation.

Too many governmental agencies, with a tacit nod from Congress, usurp the will and liberty of the electorate by fostering totalitarian economics and circumventing honest competition.

THOMAS BRIGGS

Bakersfield

* The Hoover Institution’s Miller argues vehemently against the Environmental Protection Agency’s “intrusive” regulation of innovative biotech gene-splicing of plants. He may have a point when he insists that the EPA is overzealous. Miller’s criticism of the EPA falls in line with the latter-day lambasting of the Federal Drug Administration for dragging its feet on approval of certain medicinal products coming to the marketplace. Any regulatory agency subjects itself to criticism when it acts to restrict practices or bans products, or when it seeks to protect the public from damage or danger.

The question answers itself: Is it better to be safe than sorry? Does a regulatory body like the EPA or FDA inhibit the creative onrush? Of course. Does it keep certain products and processes off the market longer than necessary? Probably. But can we do without these regulatory agencies of government? Never.

CHARLES R. BARR

Upland