Letters: GM crops

Sir: The environment minister Phil Woolas should look at some facts behind any claims that GM crops will solve the food crisis – caused in part by the GM companies growing biofuels and making huge profits on the back of it ("GM crops needed in Britain, says minister", 19 June).

Modern intensive agriculture, of which GM is a part, does not seek to feed the world – not the poor of the world anyway. It undermines food self-sufficiency, pollutes land and water, causes large-scale soil erosion (depleting the soil of its carbon content and exacerbating climate change). It is the single largest source of nitrous oxide emissions – a powerful greenhouse gas – destroys our biodiversity and increases corporate dependency and indebtedness. It concentrates on a few commodity crops, predominantly for a rich nation's diet, supplanting the diverse indigenous crops of developing countries.

In contrast, a recent major report by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development recommends that small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods are the way forward to solve the food crisis and meet the needs of local communities.

While non-GM breeding techniques are making real progress in developing crops that can tolerate heat, floods and drought, claims for GM technology are over-hyped and unproven. Data also consistently shows no increase in GM crops yields and often a reduction.

Jo Ripley

Marlborough, Wiltshire

How we maintain degree standards

Sir: The article "Lecturers 'pressed to boost degree res-ults' " (17 June) came as a surprise, because universities have serious checks and balances to ensure that quality is maintained. I have over 30 years' experience as an academic, and as an external examiner, and I found this article very damaging to the well-earned international reputation of many UK universities.

It was asserted that universities turn a blind eye to plagiarism. Plagiarism is routinely dealt with from the first year of study, when students are warned of the danger of cheating and copying. Students submit their project or essay work online and anonymously (using a candidate number) and a computer-based screening tool compares their work with all www databases. This invariably reveals those who plagiarise. Thankfully, more than 99 per cent of students realise the pitfalls of cheating and submit their own work.

It was alleged that universities are lenient on overseas students because we want their money. This requires that academics and external examiners are conspiring to be lenient, which is absurd. How can you be lenient on an overseas student, since examination scripts are anonymous? These scripts are first marked by an academic, second marked by another academic who is unaware of the first mark, and the final "agreed mark" is checked by external examiners. The accusation is insulting to overseas students, who, from my experience, are very committed at both undergraduate and post-graduate level.

It was claimed that universities award first-class degrees without any first-class marks in any aspect of the course. Examination marks, weighted over the years of study, determine what degree class you may be eligible for. Usual practice is that candidates within 2 per cent of degree boundaries are considered very closely by external examiners and examination boards and can only be awarded the higher degree class if the majority of their courses are in the higher degree category.

Professor Martin Menzies

Department of Earth Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London

Sir: I am sorry that your correspondent (letter, 19 June) feels that the media are "attempting to cheapen the achievements of students" who achieve first-class degrees; however, in turn I find her comments insulting.

I myself was awarded a first in mathematics in 1962, and understood that during that time firsts (at least, and possibly other grades) were only awarded to a certain percentage of entrants. Simply working hard does not guarantee the quality of the results. Perhaps those who are insulted by comments on the current leap in the number of first-class degrees would like to put themselves in the shoes of those who earned their degrees during previous regimes, and wonder how we feel now.

Gill Whitfield

Toddington, Bedfordshire

Iran is guilty, but so are we

Sir: M Classet (letters, 12 June) asks someone to explain why Europe and the US (combined nuclear weaponry about 11,000) are planning even more sanctions against Iran (no nuclear weapons). It is because Iran is highly likely to be developing nuclear weapons technology, and its eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons will put it in breach of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel (all nuclear powers) are non-signatories and North Korea (also a nuclear power) recently broke the treaty and withdrew.

Part of the problem is that the five original nuclear powers have also been in breach since the treaty committed them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". All the fig-leaf excuses for the failure of the five powers to engage in any effective disarmament process fatally undermine the moral and legal authority they need to prevent non-proliferation to states such as Iran.

It is easy to see why Iran feels (wrongly) that it must have the bomb. It is seeking to extend its influence in the Middle East. The demonisation of Iran has made it suspicious, surrounded as it is by nuclear-armed America, UK, Russia, Pakistan and Israel. The motives for the five victorious powers in developing nuclear weapons are the ones now impelling Iran, despite its treaty obligations.

An ugly combination of forces is pushing the world in the direction of nuclear proliferation. This will make it terrifyingly likely that one day someone will use a weapon against a city. Then we will wonder why we did not seize the opportunity after the end of the Cold War to achieve the attainable goal of disarmament and non-proliferation

John Clinch

London EC2

Bad parents make bad schools

Sir: I was interested in your article (10 June) about the growing number of parents who would sooner send their children to private than state schools. You suggest that many parents see state schools as deteriorating.

Why are some state schools so bad? Could it be that there are a growing number of parents who can't be bothered to control their kids or bring them up to learn, and these disrupt lessons for those who do want to learn?

How do you get a failing school? You get a school with a catchment area that happens to include a higher than average percentage of bad parents. The school, therefore, gets a higher than average proportion of unruly yobs who do not want to learn, and make it difficult for the good kids to learn. Even in the failing schools, the majority of parents and kids are OK, but the louts form a significant enough minority to disrupt lessons.

Why should there be more bad parents now? When I was a kid, back in the 1950s, parents didn't have a lot else to do but control and bring up their kids. No computers, computer games or stereos, and parents had a lot less money for going out.

Over the years, as new entertainments and more money have emerged, a growing minority of parents have chosen to do these other things rather than control their kids or find them constructive interest and hobbies. Consequently, more disruptive kids, anti-social behaviour and juvenile crime. Has the time now come for the Government to punish bad parents?

Marc Hurstfield

Northfleet, Kent

Vote for a shift in Labour policies

Sir: The Labour Party needs to reconnect with its core voters, forge a new progressive coalition and secure a fundamental shift of policy towards equality, fairness and social justice, involving a massive housing drive empowering local councils to build homes at affordable rents, promote trade union rights, investing in and expanding public services, ending privatisation, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and rejecting the proposal to renew Trident.

These policies have been promoted on Labour's National Executive Committee by the four Constituency Members on the Grassroots Alliance slate. Individual Members of the Labour Party will receive voting papers for the 2008/2010 National Executive this week. It is essential that individual members vote for Mohammed Azam, Ann Black, Peter Kenyon, Christine Shawcroft and Pete Willsman. I shall be retiring from the NEC in October because of advancing years.

Walter Wolfgang

Richmond, Surrey

The despair that will kill democracy

Sir: Steve Richards' article (17 June), criticising David Davis's by-election and the Irish referendum, was certainly inspirational for me. I had written off Mr Davis's resignation as a gesture, but I have now sent money for his campaign.

Steve Richards' patronising tone of "Westminster knows best", the way that he sees the press as an equal source of enlightenment, and the general sneering attitude to the people make me so angry. Doesn't he realise that outside the Westminster Village it is people like him who drive us to despair and contribute to the lack of faith in Parliament and democracy?

Yes, he is right that "fragile democracy is precarious", but unless the people are allowed to connect with political debate more directly and to vote in a system that values every vote, and are listened to, that is what will kill democracy.

Andy Burkitt

Bristol

Sir: There is a contradiction in Steve Richards' defence of our parliamentary system and his attack on David Davis.

Richards says that there was a Commons debate on 42 days in which Mr Davis's side won the argument convincingly. They may have won the argument but it does not alter the fact that the Government won the vote. That is why Mr Davis has been driven to force a by-election.

Bernard Disken

Dewsbury, West Yorkshire

Sir: Although I was offended by Andrew Crompton's description of the Irish electorate as a "small minority of trouble-makers" (letter, 19 June), I did think his view of the EU interesting.

It seems he would like the EU to function like an exclusive club, where the committee sets the rules and, if you don't like them, you should leave or, if you don't adhere to them, you should be forced to leave.

Given those conditions, would Mr Crompton agree that the United Kingdom should have been forced to leave the Union because they refused to join the euro currency 10 years ago? Similarly, shouldn't France and the Netherlands have been ejected after voting no to the European Constitution?

In fact, Europe seems to have its fair share of trouble-makers.

Jack Downey

Limerick, Ireland

Sir: When only 28 per cent (53 per cent of a 53 per cent turnout) of the Irish electorate said "No" in the referendum, can that truly be said to mean that a majority of the Irish population is against the idea of a more unified Europe of 27?

Robert Whiting

Newbury, Berkshire

Briefly...

Send in the nanny state

Sir: The knee-jerk response of this government, when confronted with any problem, is either to bureaucratise it or legislate it away; these manoeuvres are, of course, to be deplored. I would, however, support a piece of legislation which stopped English youths removing their shirts at the faintest hint of sunshine.

Dr Ian Walker

Head Master, King's School Rochester, Kent

Not so antisemitic

Sir: In 2003 when I encountered the Sharon cartoon (the Political Cartoon of the Year!),I vowed never to buy another copy of The Independent. Nor did I until today (19 June) when my eye caught the Star of David on the front page.The excellent enclosed booklet on Judaism somewhat mollified my impression of your paper as a dispenser of the neo-antisemitism of the New Left. By chance, the issue provided me with another viewing of Brown's obscene cartoon. Whatever Sharon's failings, they do not include cannibalism and the gruesome mutilation of babies.

Michael Gelman

Henwood, Cornwall

Blair a force for good

Sir: Simon Prentis (letter, 18 June) is too pessimistic about faith. Undoubtedly, intolerance and sectarianism afflict religion (as they do all aspects of human life). However, there are many of us "with faith" who, recognising that there can be only one divine principle underpinning all religions, coexist in harmony with neighbours whose approach to that reality is different from our own. Tony Blair is to be applauded for seeking to bring his influence to bear in promoting religious understanding and tolerance.

Jeremy Millen

Nuneaton, Warwickshire

Easy as pi

Sir: I despair at the scientific ignorance of some contributors. On 18 June a photo caption got everything wrong: "Mathematicians have described as 'mind-boggling' a new crop circle which apparently represents a perfect coded image of a complex equation." This beautiful circle doesn't "apparently" represent anything; it is not mind-boggling; it simply and obviously represents each digit of the number pi by the distance round the circumference. A full circle is 10, a half circle is 5 and so on. And pi is just a number, not an equation, simple or complex.

Trevor Roberts

Barking, Suffolk

Equally gullible

Sir: Janet Street-Porter (19 June) wonders if there are 10,000 gullible men who will buy Sega Toy's £85 15-inch robot, aimed at "lonely men". No doubt she will keep us informed. In the meantime I am sure that at least 10,000 women will buy yet another pair of shoes this weekend. When it comes to gullibility, I doubt there's much we men can teach women.

Mark Blackman

London SE14

Interesting? Click here to explore further