In the Independent this week, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson launched a scathing attack on “wicked” opponents of GM crops – blaming their meddling for the deaths of children in the developing world. Paterson argued that the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who oppose genetic modification of food, are allowing children to “go blind and die of malnutrition”, thanks to their “hang-up”.

These are strong words that seek to defend controversial GM crops on the grounds of morality. They have been welcomed by leading experts such as Alexander Stein of the International Food Policy Research Institute and Tom Sanders, professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, who criticised the “unfounded scare stories by well-fed people living in developed countries”. Friends of the Earth’s Craig Bennett hit back at Paterson and his “faith in unproved silver bullet measures”, but a direct challenge by a government minister on the moral standing of environmental NGOs should be ringing alarm bells across their boardrooms.

Significantly, NGOs have long benefited from high levels of public trust. Edelman’s 2013 Trust Barometer shows that NGOs are trusted to a far greater extent than businesses or governments. In 2013, NGOs were trusted by 63% of people – an all-time high. In stark contrast, the government is trusted by just 16%. Trust in NGOs offers substantial political leverage. Quite simply: when they talk, people listen. As a result, environmental NGOs are able to exert a powerful influence in debates around political hot potatoes, such as HS2 and fracking.

Trust in the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth is based on their apparently credible evidence base and an inherent belief in their good intentions. Paterson’s robust criticism is calculated to undermine that trust by challenging the evidence base that underpins opposition to GM crops and accusing NGOs of making children blind: an attack on their widely assumed humanitarian motives.

Paterson’s statement may have been an isolated incident – but as part of a strategy to take on the powerful environmental alliance over roads, railways, power stations and gas extraction, it may prove to be a powerful move. GM crops are less emotive than those issues, which are outwardly more visible or more greatly feared. By driving a wedge between environmentalists and science on the relatively softer issue of GM crops, Paterson may be helping ministers in the Departments for Transport and Energy with tougher battles to follow.