Letter: Verdict on GM trials

Click to follow
Sir: Your leading article is curiously naive. The underlying premise is that science can always give answers to difficult questions and that these questions can be set by closed groups of policy and Whitehall elites.

Supermarkets have had to respond to consumer concern by removing GM material from food. Much opinion research shows that the concerns run much deeper than that. Where is this new technology going? What is its meaning for society at large? With huge food surpluses, do we need GM crops at all? Is it fair that consumers and the environment have to take the risk whilst AgrEvo and Monsanto get the financial rewards?

Astonishingly, the peaceful removal of GM crops is practically the only point of entry UK citizens currently have to prevent genetic pollution of the countryside. At no point does the regulatory system for GM crops consult or seek public permission to proceed with these open-air experiments. At no point has the public given its consent.

I'm disappointed that The Independent cannot reach deeper into the GM issue than "we need more scientific testing".


Campaign Centre Director

Greenpeace UK, London N1