JOHN Allen's reasoning in his letter Withstand guilt (SA, November 6) was difficult to follow, but I think I got his main point. He seemed to be saying that advertising which tries to dissuade us from doing things which are harmful (smoking, over-consumption of addictive or health-damaging additives etc) is in itself harmful because it is aimed at making us feel guilty. I would suggest that appealing to one's conscience is not the same thing as trying to induce guilt, although the difference can, of course, be a subtle one.

But in his fervent anger he goes a bit over the top, I think, when he writes about a "new but insidious growing guilt-driven culture, like a virus bombarding us from all sides without mercy". Picturesque language, yes, but more like a politician's rhetoric than a substantive point. He might like to provide evidence of such a culture's existence and of its growth .

Mr Allen's fantasies about our getting guilt points in supermarkets etc are nonsense, as he must surely realise; but from those he moves into much more serious territory which cannot be ignored.

"Who", he asks, "will stand up for the sake of our children, to protect them?" I will, for one, Mr Allen, along with many others. But not to protect them from restrictions on their consumption of poison in their food and drink, as he demands.

We will do what we can to protect them from being fed toxic food additives that can stunt their growth, trigger allergic reactions and asthma attacks, and cause hyperactivity, brain cancer and thyroid tumours.

We are not "the fanatical establishment" to which he refers. Far from it. We are a minority of concerned people who have looked more deeply than most into the harm currently being suffered by too many of our children - almost certainly more deeply than Mr Allen.

Ignorance of a subject is no impediment to holding an opinion about it. Mr Allen's letter makes that crystal clear.

BASIL JONES Stop Harming Our Children (SHOC) Grosvenor Road Swindon