Sir, - I was surprised and shocked to read your recent editorial comment "Support GM trials" (D&S, Feb 9).

I live in Norfolk, where ten GM crop trials took place last year. Like North Yorkshire, agriculture is the lifeblood of our county and villagers and farmers near the crop trials have watched in impotent anger and dismay as the GM crops have been planted. In most cases, they were told about the crops at the time they were being planted, or not at all. It remains to be seen how good this year's communication exercise will be, but better communication will do nothing if the crops are still planted in spite of local opposition.

Contamination with pollen from GM crops offers a serious threat to the livelihood of nearby farmers and beekeepers. Furthermore, it isn't just nearby farms that will be affected by the trials as bees can transport pollen from GM oilseed rape at least 4.5 km (about three miles). In last May's contamination of oilseed rape seed by a GM variety, Advanta (the company supplying the contaminated seed) eventually agreed to compensate farmers. But with GM crop trials there is no mechanism in place to provide compensation.

If the trials were likely to prove or disprove that GM crops were safe, perhaps it would be worth taking this gamble with the environment and people's livelihoods. But they won't. We already know that the herbicides used in the trials - glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium - have adverse effects on soil fungi and bacteria and on earthworms, yet none of these are being monitored in the trials.

The crop trials involve growing a crop for one year in a particular site and then monitoring for a maximum of three years (sometimes much less). Yet the effects of GM crops are likely to be subtle and only show up after a number of years. Our experiences with the effects of harmful chemicals on the environment, such as CFCs where it took about 60 years to detect damage to ozone layer, should act as a reminder of this.

Critics of GM crops are often portrayed as "anti-science" but this is not the case. I myself have a PhD in plant genetics. We simply must be realistic and accept that no one, scientists included, have all the answers. Nor is opposition to the trials a "half-baked political protest", for opposition to the trials unites people across the political divide, from all the major political parties - Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green alike.

Dr JEREMY BARTLETT

Helena Road,

Norwich.

Desperation

Sir, - In his letter (D&S, Feb 16) Joe Townsend bizarrely thinks that fox hunting should be saved by its status as nature's "quickest and cleanest kill".

This argument is completely irrelevant to the hunting debate. Most people would expect dozens of men with horses and hounds to kill more quickly and cleanly than a "crocodile drowning a wildebeest in a river" wouldn't they? So what?

It is because of its status as an out-dated and totally unnecessary way to kill that the majority wish to see fox hunting banned.

Letters like Mr Townsend's do nothing to promote fox hunting. They merely highlight the desperate attempts made by the fox hunting fraternity to defend the indefensible.

M LAWN

Oaktree Drive,

Northallerton.

Hunting puzzle

Sir, - As someone who is ambivalent about the question of fox hunting, I was somewhat puzzled by Trevor Nicholson's letter (D&S, Feb 16).

He states that 75pc of people are against fox hunting. Is that 75pc of the whole nation, which would be in the region of 35 million people, or is it 75pc of those asked? There is a difference.

Even if there were that number of people against it, that is no reason for it to be banned. What I find uncomfortable about the fox hunting Bill is that it seems to be more about controlling people, (a strong feature of this government) the criminalizing of a great number of decent citizens and vote grabbing, than any thought they might have for the plight of the fox.

A E EATON

Turker Lane,

Northallerton.

Ramblings

Sir, - I find it incredible that we are still being subjected to the obsessive ramblings of Trevor Nicholson (D&S, Feb 16).

However, it has occurred to me that he does offer the one viable alternative to fox-hunting as he is clearly more than capable of boring them to death.

DEREK R WALKER

Winterfield,

Hornby,

Bedale.

Can he not see?

Sir, - I refer to your report in which Tony Pelton says he feels no need to apologise to the two female council employees he offended, because "I did nothing wrong" (D&S, Feb 9).

Setting aside rightness and wrongness for a moment, it might be helpful if Tony Pelton could find it within him at least to feel sorry that his behaviour was experienced as offensive.

SUSAN HOLDEN

Station Cottages,

Richmond.