The Editor, Sir:

This letter is in response to the 'Cassava threat' lead story in the April 13 edition of this newspaper. I happen to find the content of the research somewhat misleading for the following reasons:

1. Charles Kofi Koomson and his supervisor, Professor Mark Harris, from the College of Natural and Applied Sciences at NCU, must recognise that, as pure 'scientists', certain terminologies are not allowed in a completed research project. 'Maybe unsafe' and 'possible long term effects' suggest that, whatever the research is about, it is incomplete. Scientific research must be conclusive and definitive - both these gentlemen seem to be guessing the outcome.

2. My great-grandmother was aware of the harmful effects of poorly prepared cassava (and bammies). So this is not new information. The liquid squeezed from cassava has a high concentration of cyanide. Hence, it would only be natural to expect that 'undried' cassava flour would have high levels of cyanide. But who uses undried cassava flour?

3. The suggestion that 'overconsumption' may cause blindness and deafness is deceptive. 'Overconsumption' of anything can be considered unsafe (even water). Therefore, to imply that consuming cassava or bammies is unsafe is misleading.

4. The suggestion of increasing cassava production was mainly for offsetting the dependency on imported wheat and corn which are some of the major ingredients in animal feed - the cost of which has skyrocketed in the last 12 months. To suggest breadfruit as a viable alternative is all but ridiculous.

I am etc.,

W. Morgan

karatt123@yahoo.com

Mandeville, Manchester