Â鶹´«Ã½

From James Delphi

As you say in your Editorial, the government in the UK is unlikely to offer genetically modified crops a crude red or green light (14 June, p 3). It is the shade of amber that matters – the degree of caution and control placed on the commercialisation of these products.

You hint at three principles of control: that GM polluters should pay if they damage the environment, that consumers should be able to choose between GM and non-GM products, and that organic farming should be protected from contamination.

A fourth principle could be a precautionary approach. To justify the risk of potentially large or irreversible impacts there needs to be clear and substantial societal benefit. One way to ensure this might be to allow GM crops to be marketed under a licence that would be renewable every five years following independent analysis of the costs and benefits to society, and regulatory compliance. If the benefits are not clear, then licences would not be renewed.

Under this system, the producer would bear the risk of over-claiming for GM. If, as many suspect, the claimed benefits are overstated and not worth the costs and risks, then a robust regulatory framework based on these principles will leave GM permitted but commercially stalled.

Stockport, Manchester, UK