GM foods: the proof of the pudding

In ‘More GM approvals, but national bans remain' (24-30 May), Emily Smith took rather a lop-sided view of the situation in Europe.
Basing herself on the Eurobarometer and other polls, she observed that European shoppers remain resistant to the idea of genetically modifed (GM) foods. But polls ask people about their intentions. Their action in the grocery stores, more difficult to measure although much more relevant, may be quite different. No doubt some consumers do remain resistant, but in every country in Europe where labelled GM foods are put on sale, customers buy.
Protests by self-styled ‘environmental' groups need to be recognised for what they are: pronounce-ments motivated by political agendas. Their accusations that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is ignor-ing future health represent ritual posturing. EFSA is staffed by experienced and reputable scientists, the ‘environmental' groups by political activists.
So, too, their claims that biotech companies ‘hide' research showing damaging health effects on rats. They often promote scares like that; looking in detail invariably shows the stories to be built on assertion and allegation, not on evidence and argument.
Smith was correct, of course, when she observed that member states struggle to justify opposition to GM cultivation without hard evidence in support. She might like to go on to ask why they try.

Vivian Moses
Chairman, CropGen
London