from Ben Ayliffe, GM campaigner, Greenpeace UK

Sir; Clive Beddall’s interview with Hugh Grant of Monsanto (GM: It’s just a matter of time, The Grocer, July 24, p28,29) focuses entirely on the alleged advantages of GM without examining any of the risks.

We hear all about the agronomic benefits of GM in the US, but no mention of the thousands of extra tonnes of chemicals needed. We hear how GM increases consumer choice, but nothing about the contamination - which is irreversible - that occurs once GM crops are grown.

Monsanto was not asked why, if it is so sure of the safety and benefits GM will offer, it refuses to accept any economic or environmental liability for them.

Consumer rejection of GM food and GM feed is based on well-founded concerns about long-term risks. Greenpeace’s experience of talking to thousands of Sainsbury customers about its GM-fed milk has been overwhelming - people simply don’t want it.

Yet The Grocer suggests a rational debate on GM will not come from people “who picket supermarkets”. Which begs the question: why should we believe that a useful debate will come from one-sided reporting masquerading as fair analysis?