WITH reference to "Rush to grow bio-fuels will lead to disaster" (Soapbox, January 18).

Rigorous debate on the sustainability of bio-fuels should be welcomed, but arguing all bio-fuels are disastrous is just as simplistic and unhelpful as arguing they are all good.

Bio-fuels should not be thought of as one technology. With the right crops and processing methods they do reduce emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2 and provide income for growers and processors.

Along with improving vehicle fuel efficiency, bio-fuels are the only available options for reducing vehicle tailpipe emissions.

Current technologies typically save between 30 and 60 per cent greenhouse gases compared to diesel and petrol. In the UK, a rapeseed-to-biodiesel plant under construction at Wilton, Teesside, will save 80 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions compared to the equivalent fossil fuels.

New emerging technologies that use waste or the fibrous part of plants significantly reduce the dependence on nitrogen-hungry food crops. These advanced bio-fuels can save more than 90 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions compared to diesel and petrol. By using these "second generation" technologies it is estimated two million hectares of land could provide approximately 16 per cent of UK transport fuel.

Promoting the idea that rainforests are being chopped down and covered with oil palm just so UK drivers can keep on filling their tanks is not correct. Bio-diesel accounts for only three per cent of the UK's palm oil use. The rest goes into shopping baskets as processed food, cosmetics and toiletries.

York is the home of the National Non-Food Crops Centre. We recommend people visit our website, www.nnfcc.co.uk, for a balanced analysis of bio-fuels and other sustainable products made from plants.

Dr Jeremy Tomkinson, Chief executive officer, The National Non-Food Crops Centre, Biocentre, York Science Park, Innovation Way, Heslington, York.