THIS week is supposed to have seen the beginning of the national debate on the issue of genetically modified organisms. The Government has launched the debate, but we would all have been forgiven for having missed it. The impression one gets is that questions on GMs are about as welcome as questions as to the whereabouts of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The issue is important. All the usual suspects are rolling their tanks about, trying to get on to each others' lawns. The usual protagonists are coming out with the usual press statements.

The problem is that in any continuing debate, boredom sets in. It has done so long ago in this case.

When that happens statements become more and more extreme, positions more entrenched, and voices more strident. If that did not happen, no one would take any notice at all, because they would not be listening.

Experts do not like it when their opinions are ignored. Experts who also happen to be politicians hate it. It is interesting how people of whom no notice would be taken in real life suddenly feel that they should be listened to on technical matters, just because they are Members of Parliament.

Most MPs are not capable of moving forward a scientific or technical argument. That said they should be in touch with the feelings of the public, who did put them in Parliament after all. I think they are more in touch with the part of their organisation that will provide them with preferment in their party.

Back to GMOs. There will be very few of us in Western society who have not eaten produce that either contains GMOs or which was fed on feed containing GMOs. Genetically modified soya and oil seed rape are grown widely in both the North and South American continents. For many years it has been imported into this country for use in animal feed. Modified maize is grown in Spain.

It is possible to buy animal feed that does not contain such organisms, but it costs more. It is non-standard, and consumers do not seem prepared to pay any extra for it. So costs are greater, but income is the same. Not good business.

Those huge numbers who have eaten such modified foods do not seem to be suffering any adverse effects in themselves. Activists would say that there is a danger of adverse effects on the environment around the sites where the crops are grown. It is precisely for this reason that experiments are being carried out to check whether damage does occur.

However, those opposed to the introduction of the technology threaten crop destruction whenever publicity is given to the sites. Sometimes the destruction is carried out. I do not know whether environmental damage occurs. I am never likely to get to know if the experiment cannot be completed.

The Government and other organisations such as the National Farmers' Union say that they are awaiting the results of the trials. The problem is that the word of the Government is increasingly mistrusted. People think they have already made up their minds and the experiments are just window dressing.

In the meantime, the series of meetings starts. What point is there in them without all the facts? How can we make up our minds in an informed way? Genetically modified organisms will stand or fall by whether people want to eat them. In Europe at least, the consumer is king. I can see no economic argument for producing food that people do not want and I shall not be doing it.

Updated: 11:30 Tuesday, June 10, 2003