Letter: Victory for GM prejudice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.YOU SUGGEST the decision of Unilever and others to cease sales of GM foods demonstrates consumer power ("Victory for grass-roots action", 2 May). Rather, it is a victory for prejudice over evidence. There is no evidence GM foods are less safe than others coming on the market. The "victory" could therefore mean more costly food (the GM puree was 20 per cent cheaper), and avoidable environmental harm.
There is a wider issue. To imply that government can never be trusted, that big business is always corrupt, or that campaign groups are always honest, is to rely on prejudice. Scare stories may sell newspapers, but, in the long run, only they benefit.
RICHARD BALMER
Solihull
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments