Sir, I am horrified that the Government has given the go-ahead for planting genetically modified maize (report and leading article, March 10) and therefore potentially other such crops.

Being involved with a charitable organisation dedicated to research into and treatment of illness caused by environmental factors, I am extremely concerned about the health implications for people susceptible to allergy caused by foods.

The complete biochemistry of the compounds used in the modification process is not known; science does not yet understand the full biochemistry of the human body; and the contention that cross-contamination is not a threat is clearly preposterous, as pollens can be spread across continents by wind and insects.

Genetically modified soya (admittedly not the initial crop to be grown) has been developed to be unaffected by organophosphates which damage normal crops but could be used as a herbicide to kill non-modified weeds and spare the soya.

It is not difficult to envisage such chemicals harming animals in the field and, by extension, human beings. Even if this turns out not to be the case with normal healthy people there are many already with compromised immune systems who have been made ill by exposure to pesticides and other chemicals. Approximately 60 per cent of a plant’s DNA structure resembles our own, so how can any of us be sure that what kills unmodified plants will not damage us as well?

Yours faithfully,
R. J. WHITE,
(Chairman),
Breakspear Hospital Trust,
Hertfordshire House,
Wood Lane, Paradise Estate,
Hemel Hempstead,
Hertfordshire HP2 4FD.
March 10.

From the Co-ordinator of Farm Scale Evaluations

Sir, The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (report, March 5) has criticised the design and conduct of the government-commissioned farm-scale evaluations on genetically modified crops.

Had the scientists who did the research been interviewed, we would have sought to correct some of the misconceptions in its report.

Moreover, the committee appeared not to draw its evidence from the papers detailing our methods and results. These papers have been reviewed intensively by the Scientific Steering Committee and by referees acting for the Royal Society and the British Ecological Society, by the GM Science Review panel and others.

We agreed with the committee that it was necessary to review our conclusion on GM maize in the light of the announcement that atrazine, one of the weedkillers used in the trials, is to be banned. We therefore analysed the data further. Again, this study was submitted for scrutiny by independent referees of the highest standard.

I find it astonishing that the chairman of the committee should announce that the work is “neither robust nor particularly credible science” within a few hours of its publication in Nature, the most highly acclaimed scientific journal in the world.

Society has major decisions to make about the impacts of new agricultural practices on our wider biodiversity — it can base them on independent, peer-reviewed, experimental science such as the farm-scale evaluations, or on preconception and dogma.

We recommend the former.

Yours faithfully,
LES FIRBANK,
Co-ordinator,
Farm Scale Evaluations; Head, Land Use Systems Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,
Lancaster Environment Centre,
Library Avenue,
Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP.
March 8.

Times Recommends

• Sarah Brown says 'no thanks' to veal at G8 - twice
• Stockton-on-Tees is obesity capital of Britain
• Stores blame poor sales on Murray factor