Sir, As chief scientific adviser to the European Commission, Professor Glover’s views on GM foods are given prominence in The Courier (September 20).
Having read her opinions, I’m left wondering why.
To describe rejection of GM foods as “a form of madness” typifies the arrogance displayed by pro-GM scientists towards us lesser mortals who dare to question the hype and misinformation endemic to the GM food industry.
Her statement that “we know enough to prove GM foods are safe” completely ignores the evidence from studies which point in the opposite direction, the most recent being the longer term study by Professor Seralini.
To say that 99.99% of scientists agree there is no danger from GM foods is equally dubious, implying that disagreement comes from only one in ten thousand, a completely arbitrary and unrealistically low figure.
Professor Glover also implies that GM “golden rice” could cure blindness in the developing world if only people like me would stop media scaremongering.
The fact is that despite two decades of generous research funding, GM golden rice still fails to live up to its promised benefits.
It’s time the cosy club of pro-GM scientists, many of them with interests aligned to the GM crop industry, are removed from their EU advisory and regulatory roles and replaced with scientists prepared to take a more balanced and independent view.
Fortunately, the bulk of public opinion in Europe continues to reject GM food, and rightly so.
Peter Romilly. Newport on Tay.
Care home obsession
Sir, Councillor Alex Rowley, in his extensive piece about the Fife Council budget, quotes the caf at Aberdour and the Sports and Leisure Trust as examples of enterprises run more cost-effectively now that they’re outwith Fife Council. Why then is he, and his political allies, so obsessed with building new council-run care homes?
Fife Council already contracts out more than 90% of the care home places it funds. Report after report has shown no overall difference in quality but there’s a difference in cost measured in hundreds of pounds per week per place.
The council, however, persists in its plans to build new homes when the private and third sectors will meet any need and meet it far more economically.
When asked why, Fife’s Labour administration witters on about the need for “mixed provision”, yet the non-council providers are already a diverse group ranging from national businesses through one-off privately owned homes to third sector, not-for-profit providers.
When Fifers got to www.fifedirect.org.uk/bigchange they won’t find “Don’t Build Unnecessary Care Homes” in the list of options. Fortunately, there’s a “Big Ideas” section so they can make their opinions felt.
Councillor Dave Dempsey. Leader, Fife Council Conservative Group.
Faced with a simple choice
Sir, As a parent of two children age 10 and eight at a local feeder primary school, I have followed the process and discussion surrounding the proposed new Madras College with obvious interest.
If we cut through the long and wordy debate, we are faced with a very simple choice.
If the community supports Pipeland, then in just over two years our children will enter the doors of a state of the art building designed specifically to deliver a 21st century education.
If we oppose Pipeland, it is not clear when , if ever, we will get a new school.
After all, if the people of St Andrews are foolish enough to refuse what is on offer, given the ever-tightening public purse strings, at some point there is the very real danger that the money will be withdrawn and earmarked for a competing cause.
Yet another generation of children will then be condemned to be taught in crumbling, outdated buildings.
I know which option I prefer.
David Bell. 43 Hepburn Gardens, St Andrews.
It is wrong to remove tree
Sir, I am deeply saddened by the decision of Perth and Kinross Council to allow the wanton destruction of the Scots pine tree in the grounds of Perth Academy.
It would appear that this tree fulfils all the criteria for the implementation of a tree preservation order. It has a high amenity value, is in good condition and plays a very special role for all who know it.
What kind of message is being sent out by allowing the destruction of such an important tree, one that is shown in the first Ordnance Survey Map of the area, a tree which plays such an important role for wildlife?
This tree must be retained for the future, it could easily live for another 200 years.
Should the council not be turning their attention to more pressing matters, such as the high amount of dead trees which endanger daily the passing motorists and cyclists who pass underneath them on the A822?
They hang perilously dead over the carriageway. It’s a situation the roads department have known about for many years but seem incapable of remedying.
Let’s see some common sense, leave the healthy and vibrant tree and remove those which endanger all, including my children, who pass under them daily.
J Schad. Kaimes Cottage, Braco.