The facts are that we do not need GM Crops. What kind of scientist would say that we do? Who appointed him to say such things? Who does he really serve? GM foods have already been proven to be dangerous for humans as well as wild life. Monsanto the makers who gave the world Agent Orange appear to be good at causing destruction where ever they go. We all have to wake up and stop their Corporate criminality.

Ian, London,

Monsanto may now control 75% of food we eat.The spread of this seed to natural seed by nature may increase this to 90%.The ingestion of these crops will increase the uptake of herbicide now manufactured by this modified plant.All this has been demonstrated but ignored.

Ed Baseley, Vancouver BC , Canada

Herald Tribune
By Denise Caruso
July 4, 2007

The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded.

Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do."

Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.

With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built.

Innovation begets risk, almost by definition. When something is truly new, only so much can be predicted about how it will play out. Proponents of a discovery often see and believe only in the benefits that it will deliver. But when it comes to innovations in food and medicine, belief can be a dangerous thing. Often, new information is discovered that invalidates the principles - thus the claims of benefit and, sometimes, safety - on which proponents have built their products.

S.Rigali, Los Angeles, US/California

I believe this is a ploy to destroy the organic food industry. All the recent studies seem to indicate that organic food is far healthier because of its higher nutritional content. So why do we not have government scientists pushing for an organic Britain both pesticide and GM free that would help improve our health.

I am reading increasingly that GM foods may be carcinogenic, some even require more pesticides than the normal crops. of the course the real reasons behind this remain hidden. Perhaps it is to stop people improving their health or perhaps it is to create a new profitable industry for a few but it is definitely not good for the environment.

For millenium humans have been able to grow their own food this would be questionable if GM food becomes more widespread.

I believe GM foods are a crime against humanity.

Jason Barnes, Bromley, Kent

GM crops have major drawbacks. At times when species (plants as well as animals) are disappearing GM plants hugely decrease the variety in plants. Each plant is an exact replica of the other and should anything attack them the whole crop will be destroyed. Also farmers cannot re-use the seeds which plays well into the hands of the Monsanto's as each year the farmers will have to buy both the seeds and the relevant products that go with the variety. These companies are trying to steer us even further away from sound management of the environment. I also wonder how they will affect bees, bugs and birds.

Esther Phillips, Leatherhead,

Mr. Beddington is one more example of politicians opening their big flaps for industry, instead of opening their minds in order to properly represent the public.

S.Rigali, Los Angeles, US/California

Where is the research proving that GM food is safe? There is none. The government's view is that no evidence of effect = evidence of no effect. And why is there none? The UK's first and only independent study on the safety of GM food in 1998 was carried out by Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen but was terminated, covered up and the data confiscated. Around the same time, the Agriculture Minister, Dr. Jack Cunningham, spoke of enlisting "eminent scientists" to give the public "key messages" on GM. The new government chief scientist is just following the global political agenda, which is to lead us into an Orwellian society. Once the GM crop 'trials' are in place, contamination becomes inevitable. This has already happened in Canada, and consequently, small-scale farmers are put out of business by Monsanto lawsuits for illegal use of their patented seeds. The end result is that the control of food production will be in the hands of a few. No thank you.

Donald Maclean, Northwood, UK

Your new chief scientist is incorrect in suggesting that there has been no litigation in the U.S. on GM crops. In fact, one of the main U.S. regulators, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, lost three major cases at the federal district court level (one of the main U.S. court branches) in the past 16 months. The primary issues were about environmental safety and economic impact, concerning GM grass and alfalfa. There are also lawsuits in process concerning economic harm to rice farmers from GM contamination because of the loss of millions in export revenue.

He needs to catch up on the details about GM issues, and to consult unbiased sources, before he can be taken as a credible spokesperson.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, Washington, DC

The snag with GM crops is that there is no going back once they are in the environment. We can change our minds about nuclear power any time we like but changing biology in the wild is forever.

P Robbins, Cornwall,

I am against GM crops because I think they have a real potential to be very dangerous in the long term and because we will be far more dependent on a minority of seed companies.

That said if the government simply ensures that in the event of a major environmental or health problem the company who designs the GM crop would be liable then no problem. If the company does not test properly and causes serious problems then just make them pay to correct the problem and damages.

joe, Edinburgh, Scotland