Sir; Regarding the whole GM issue, I don't know how the words "realistic scientific debate" and "manic crackpot fringe" in your editorial fit together. I have subscribed to The Grocer for some three years and never seen anything approaching a realistic scientific debate in its pages on this matter. Pro-GM campaigners, like yourselves (go on admit it!) always feel they need to slur the pro organic anti-GM side with half backed insults. We're sandal wearers, hippies, fascists on occasions and, worst of all British insults, middle class. Two facts I am aware of is that GM technology has actually led to greater use of pesticides and that you don't feed the starving millions by forcing their farmers to buy patented GM seeds. There are serious issues surrounding cross-contamination, the irreversibility of setting GM technology free and around the whole question of the precautionary principle. A reasoned debate is exactly what The Grocer should be providing rather than mudslinging and a one sided endorsement of the gm companies' PR line. Charles Redfern MD, SdF-Organico Editor's note: The Grocer's stance is to promote realistic scientific debate about GMOs in the face of an ongoing barrage of extremist rhetoric. That is why we organised a major event where Patrick Holden of the Soil Association and Hugh Grant of Monsanto debated the issues. We have had many messages supporting our stance ­ far more than letters of criticism. {{LETTERS }}