Professor Anthony Trewavas (Letters, 26 March) states that a belief in the efficacy of organic farming is merely an “uncritical opinion”, whereas a belief in the superiority of conservation agriculture, aided by GM technology, would represent, in his view, a critical approach to the issue of food provision for a rapidly growing population.
It would seem that what he finds offensive is the challenging of his own views.
Perhaps we should be questioning how we can slow down the rate of population growth, rather than concentrating solely on how we will feed a species whose numbers are growing at an exponential rate, to the detriment of other species, and our fragile planet.
Otherwise, we will be constantly running to catch up. Since poverty is the main driver of population growth in the developing world, tackling economic inequality at its source would be a positive step.
Monocultural crops, including GM crops, represent one of the biggest threats to the poorest people across the globe. As these crops come to dominate farming land, the people who once lived sustainable, self-sufficient lifestyles are losing control over their food supply.
How this land-grab can be justified as a solution to future food supply problems for these people is beyond me.
The impetus to promote GM crops is not driven by moral considerations, despite protestations to the contrary by advocates of this technology.
The only certainty is that the GM industry is profiting from the misfortune of those who are least able to defend their rights.