I was intrigued by your editorial which castigates minimal official research receiving disproportional publicity (WDDTY, vol 10, no 2).

Recently, The Guardian reported Sir Robert May's statement to the Commons Select Environment Committee that "we need bio-engineered crops. . . to reduce the need for intensive use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides". No evidence is given as to how this view is arrived at.

Just the opposite is the case. GM crops are designed to be more resistant to these products so that more can then be sold to unsuspecting farmers all over the world. Then, even more pesticides will seep into the soil, ground, water, rivers, fish and food chain.

Is this one of the many instances when some marginal research is quoted to justify the vastly greater use of these poisons? Monsanto spends millions on GM crop research with the sole aim of increasing the use of their products.

If there is some research to show that genetically engineered crops are in some way beneficial to consumers, then this would suit the manufacturers very well to counter the growing concern that we are being rushed into something we don't want or need. Hans Lobstein, Brighton......