Item 2 is another interesting review of Lord Taverne's recently published book, 'The March of Unreason'.

This one comes from the Financial Times. Its reviewer accuses Taverne of his own brand of fundamentalism - "a naive and outdated scientism. His is a world in which science can do no wrong; in which research is untainted by vested interests, and companies such as Monsanto exist purely to feed the hungry."

The reviewer concludes, "Those seeking a more thoughtful encounter with the contemporary dilemmas and opportunities of science are advised to march elsewhere."

Sir John Krebs has now retired from the UK's Food Standards Agency - to many people's relief!

He has used the occasion to launch an attack on his critics, as The Times reports (item 3), "Green and consumer organisations are businesses no more representative of the public interest than multinationals, the former head of Britain's food watchdog said yesterday."

Yet Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Soil Association alone have more members than all of Britain's major political parties put together, and now, of course, two of the UK's big three parties are themselves calling for a GM ban until the technology is proven safe.

But the concern about GM crops run much deeper and wider than even this suggests. The Five Year Freeze, which is calling for a minimum 5-year moratorium on GMOs, represents over 120 National organisations and companies, who between them represent over 4 million people, there are also 500 councils among the Freeze's supporters.
http://www.fiveyearfreeze.org/indexb.htm

This represents a massively broad coalition of civil society and public bodies and to dismiss this level of concern as "no more representative of the public interest than multinationals" says it all about Krebs' partisan agenda.

Even prior to his appointment as head of the FSA, Krebs was on record as saying that criticisms of GM food were "shrill, often ill-informed and dogma-driven". Some speculate that his historic support for GM may have been a factor in his being offered the top job at the FSA, particularly as his area of specialism had no connection with food safety - he's an expert on bird behaviour.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=73

Finally, former GM crop scientist Dr James MacGregor told AgBioView recently why he retired from the field on scientific grounds.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5081

Dr Chris Preston, an Australian weed scientist responded by saying why he regarded the environmental release of GMOs as perfectly safe. In item 1 MacGregor responds to Preston.

1. MacGregor on Preston - GM Crop Unscientific?
2. Peer Review - FT review on Taverne
3. Krebs lets rip - Krebs on his critics
------

1.Response to Chris Preston - GM Crop Unscientific?
- James Macgregor <[email protected]>

I am glad Christopher Preston agrees that laboratory generated GM modifications are kept under strict containment conditions because they present unknown risk's to the environment. The environmental release of GM crops containing artificial transgenes which can mutate, transfer artificial components to autonomously replicating wild organisms, evolve and proliferate also present unknown risks to human health and the environment.

The lessons of the pharmaceutical industry may prove worthy of note, the withdrawal of pharmaceutical products demonstrates that even with the strictest testing regime oversights occur. With respect to the GM regulatory regime, the assessment ability is limited and is, as previously stated a snapshot exercise lacking in longevity. Importantly pharmacuetical drugs do not possess the capability to mutate, transfer components, evolve and proliferate, conversely escaped transgenes genes may prove impossible to withdraw.

As Chris Preston concedes mutation, a random genetic process that can occur within a generation, is not always predictable. I presume all regulators are aware that mutation is an inevitable natural process that can fundamentally alter transgene properties. To require mutation assessment of artificial transgenes proposed for environmental release could be considered only sensible. Failing to account for both mutation and gene escape, two well known natural phenomenon is unreconcilable with sound and impartial scientific judgement.

GM trait persistence post crop escape depends on the trait providing a selective advantage, as stated. The aim of some GM research is to produce traits that would provide advantages to recipient wild populations, i.e. pest resistant crops. Transgene proliferation in wild plant populations encountering the same pests would be expected due to positive selection. The aim of other GM research is to release artificial transgenes which have not undergone even basic predictive risk assessment and in area's containing potential recipient wild populations.

To my knowledge there is only one fundamental differences between GM and conventional crop breeding methods, the latter involves the transfer of naturally evolved genes from one cultivar to another. Whereas, the former allows the laboratory generation of artificial constructs that undergo a limited testing regime prior to release into the environment. The difference being that naturally evolved genes have already undergone environmental testing, during evolution.

I do not consider myself to be anti-GM, I simply believe that in it's current form considering the long term, it is not good science. If anything positive has come from the GM affair it is to reaffirm the need for centrally funded scientists who can offer independent and impartial scientific consultation. After all, scientists determine the world we live in tomorrow as politicians determine the world we live in today, scientists should therefore demonstrate the same impartiality in the advice they offer.

Ps. I am unfamiliar with the nature of Christopher Prestons chemical mutagenesis work, I would define GM as I have done in paragraph 5.
------

2.Peer Review
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7d7aa3e8-aca3-11d9-ad92-00000e2511c8.html
James Wilsdon, Financial Times (UK), April 15 2005
'THE MARCH OF UNREASON: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism by Dick Taverne; Oxford University Press £18.99, 310 pages;

Lord Taverne is a man with a mission. In 2002, angered by the public backlash against genetically modified crops, the Liberal Democrat peer founded a pressure group, Sense About Science, "to promote an evidence-based approach to scientific issues".

Like every political movement, Sense About Science requires a manifesto, a core body of arguments around which its followers can rally. The March of Unreason sets out to perform this task.

Taverne's central message is that science is under siege. Environmentalists are leading the charge by promoting a dangerous mix of anti-technological Luddism, precautionary regulation and an irrational faith in organic agriculture. Organisations such as Greenpeace display a form of "eco-fundamentalism", which ignores any scientific evidence that fails to support its pre-ordained views. This tendency was particularly marked in the battle over GM crops, but applies equally to campaigns against chemicals and waste incinerators.

A second line of attack is from postmodernists, whose notions of science as a social construct have assaulted "the very citadel of science itself, its claim to objectivity". The notion that science is not simply the value-free pursuit of truth, but is shaped by social factors and the assumptions of scientists themselves, has eroded trust in science. It is also to blame, argues Taverne, for the misguided view that there should be more public dialogue, accountability and "democratic