Sir; As predictable as a bank holiday traffic jam is the anti-GM brigade's knee-jerk reaction to any biotech development ('GM 'eel' ice cream a dangerous idea', The Grocer, 1 July, p28). They do it routinely, some obviously trying to defend market share and protect their brand name against a globally successful and rapidly growing technology.
In little more than a hundred words, your correspondent claimed the introduction of a low-fat ice cream was "frivolous" (ever heard of "organic" cotton?) and "unwanted" (let the market decide). She questioned whether the new ice cream would be safe. Please may we have evidence? It should not be marketed as healthier, she said, simply because it is low-fat. So on what grounds are so-called organic foods marketed as healthier?
On she went: the health impacts of genetic engineering have not been fully tested. Yet they have been looked at a lot more than in organic foods. And finally, the old saw about mystery toxins. No data was offered, just an unsupported allegation, perhaps to counter the recurrent findings of dangerous mycotoxins in organic products which then have to be withdrawn as unsafe.