Letter: GM common sense
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Richard Hornsby (letter, 7 June) sums up everything that is rotten about the arguments in favour of genetically modified food.
He wishes to confine the debate to scientific arguments, yet gives none to support his claims. The fact is that at present an analysis of the risks and benefits of GM food is not a scientific process, because there is no experimental evidence of either the long-term benefits or the long- term dangers.
One might ask why the profits from a speedy release of GM plants outweigh the necessity of a long-term environmental study. One might also ask how the hungry of the Third World will benefit, when we already pay to destroy surplus food.
By all means let us hear the debate. But spare us the hypocrisy of championing a "scientific argument" you were never intending to examine.
HANBURY HAMPDEN-TURNER
Fulham, London
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments