Dear Sir/Madam,

I am surprised at the apparent surprise expressed in today's Daily Telegraph that 78 percent of people questioned in a government survey were of the opinion that GM food companies are "driven by profit not health" (GM food companies 'driven by profit not health', 16 June 2003)?

Surely they are merely expressing an accurate understanding of capitalist, free market economics. What do companies exist for - why do people invest money in them - if not primarily to make a profit? It is generally assumed that the best way to make a profit is to provide a product or service which people want and benefits them, but a reality check shows that this is far from always being the case.

I share the concern of the 83 percent who think that too little is known about the long-term effects of GM food and crops on human health and the environment. In the light of such uncertainty, the sensible thing to do is to treat it with extreme caution. What we can be certain about, on the other hand, is the primacy of the profit motive of GM companies. They have invested a lot of money in it and want to see good returns, and their employees jobs depend on it. I am not being overly cynical; this is simply the way the system, and the human nature on which it is based, works. Just look at how long and hard the tobacco industry resisted (and continues to resist) efforts to curb its business, which is so harmful to human health. Why? Because their business is what is most important to them. And the same is true of every other industry. 

Now that we have but the spectre of Communism behind us, it is time for us to face up to some of the uglier aspects of capitalism, in particular the primacy of the profit motive.

What I'm suggesting goes to the very heart of our economic system, I know, and heart surgery is not something that anybody relishes. Quite the contrary. However, sometimes, if the patient is to survive, it is necessary.

Heart surgery is not something anyone should rush into. It must be given a lot of thought and consideration, and carried out with great skill and care. Most importantly, all stages must be conducted with the full and informed consent and cooperation of the patient! Communism, although correct in seeing the need for heart surgery, failed so miserably (almost killing the patient in the process) because it rushed into it with mistaken theories of heart function and development, and a terrible disrespect for the personal integrity of the patient, who sensibly resisted and fought off the forced and violent attempts to operate on him.

Continuing with the analogy, the patient's heart (our economy) is being increasingly miscontrolled by an area of tissue which has controlled it since birth. Most doctors thus see it as perfectly natural and normal, and are loath to interfere with it, preferring instead to treat the undesirable symptoms, which are becoming ever more apparent, with drugs. 

For my part, I belong to a new school of doctors with a radically different view of heart function and development. In our view, the area of tissue controlling the heart (the profit motive of our economy) has to be subordinated to a higher centre of control, interestingly enough, also located in the heart, but in its spiritual rather than its physical manifestation, and capable of distinguishing enlightened self-interest from the common, narrow, overly materialistic self-interest which dominates the patient's behaviour today.

Rather than go into details, at this early stage, about the surgery I have in mind, it is of paramount importance first to discuss the situation with the patient and to convince him of the need for it.