Sir, – Matt Ridley was using his own perception of ‘natural’ to carry his widely known position on GM (The SF of March 11, page 8).

He’s conflating issues. I’d give him more time if we had a global food shortage. We don’t.

Not least, 70% of the global population continues to be successfully fed by local, traditional independent farming, which he seems to advocate being replaced by GM – why ?.

Most food poverty is due to geopolitical conflict (at least 60%). For every one of his claims there are equally, at least, robust science-based counter claims. ‘Golden Rice’ which he relied on as an example is one of many ‘cases-in-point’.

After 30-odd years of failed production, safety and nutritional tests it was finally recently released … without any certainty that it will solve the vitamin A deficiency problem in any event, while one of the target countries, the Philippines, had all but solved its previously endemic vitamin A deficiency issue through a public health programme promoting the eating of readily available yellow fruit and veg.

‘Golden Rice’ is, at best, an oversold solution to a complex issue and apparently rice farmers may not want to plant it anyway as its productivity is unreliable!

For me, we don’t need GM-GE to be good and better farmers. We don’t need to be even more dependent on corporate interests and shouldn’t give them even more leverage over our industry.

In my book, trust least the greater vested interest!

Denise Walton, Peelham Farm, Berwickshire.