From Matt Carmichael
Having read your editorial “Farms for the future” (13 October, p 5), I turned eagerly to Michael Marshall’s article putting forward the case for the defence for genetically modified food (p 8) to learn of the “host of benefits that have received little attention”. What I read was a familiar, and rather short, list of benefits promoted by the pro-GM lobby, now backed with some evidence. Marshall is right that “it can seem almost impossible to find reliable information on GM crops” in such a divided debate.
You do no one any favours by treating the issue as if it were purely one of science, thus missing the reason for the strong feelings on both sides. Science cannot be separated from the unequal balance of political and economic power which threatens to privatise agriculture itself.
Leeds, UK
