Nature Biotechnology replies:

Dr. Cotter-Howells appears confused about the point of our editorial. It was merely that Greenpeace (and other “friends of the earth”) indirectly prevent the development of “eco-friendlier” products (there are no absolutes). Ecogen had such products, born of GM and other approaches. Adverse public and investor sympathies made it difficult for that business to thrive. More importantly, she suggests that part of consumer discomfort with GM stems from a noninclusive regulatory system. We agree. However, the admittedly hesitant moves by governments in Europe to broaden the democratic base—entrusting the public with details of experimental GM plantings, for instance—have been rebuffed. Greenpeace's vandalism of the trial at Lyng, though not ultimately illegal, was certainly antidemocratic and counter to the advancement of knowledge and truth. Incidentally, those who do read the technical analysis and understand the editorials in our publication find both rewarding.