The outspoken comments by Dr Bill Macfarlane Smith, of the internationally renowned Scottish Crop Research Institute, come in the run-up to a major conference on the issue at which he'll be one of the keynote speakers. The two-day event is being held by the Scottish Agricultural College at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, on Wednesday and Thursday.

Pointing to the "horrendous difficulties" currently facing the farming industry, with prices for most commodities at rock bottom, he warns that there is no easy solution on the horizon. As long as agriculture continues to produce surpluses, food processors and buyers will be in a position to force down returns to primary producers.

"The only way I can see of breaking the cycle is by enabling farmers to add value to their crops through genetic modification," says Dr Macfarlane Smith. "For example, by producing genetically modified malting barley which consistently malts better, it would be perfectly reasonable for the growers of that barley to expect a share of the improved efficiency."

"At present it's a divide and rule situation which makes it very difficult for the farmer to earn more money, especially in an over-supplied market which allows processors and the supermarkets to dictate prices. I've yet to find a single farmer who says he will never grow GM crops if they're going to add value to his production - provided, of course, that there are safeguards and the environment isn't going to be affected."

The SCRI at Invergowrie, near Dundee, is one of three UK research centres in the UK which are partners in a three-year project to compare GM crops with non-modified crops, commissioned by the Department of Environment with total Government funding of Pounds 3.25 million. The other bodies involved are the Institute of Arable Crops, Rothamstead, Hertfordshire, and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon.

As Dr Macfarlane Smith explains: "The aim is to see what impact there will be on a whole range of factors including insect life, the environment in general, and how pollen movement from GM crops might affect other plants. Basically, we'll be addressing all the criticism coming from the green lobby and other anti-GM groups.

"The fact that the Government was willing to put money into this risk assessment project has been important in persuading commercial companies, such as Monsanto, that they should have a voluntary three-year moratorium on the growing of commercial GM crops in the United Kingdom.

"Hopefully, our work over the next three years will also answer some of the more way-out statements made by the green lobby, who are being selective about the facts and are not giving all the information on genetic modification to the public."

For instance, Dr Macfarlane Smith dismisses as "patent nonsense" the claim by some environmental groups that pollen from GM maize poses a risk to organic fish farming. And in response to suggestions that the release of genetically modified pollen could have a severe effect on the environment as far as plants are concerned, he states: "Research into pollen movement has shown that 50 metres from the crop you are unlikely to get much more than three parts per million of modified pollen."

As for "scurrilous statements" to the effect that scientists are prepared to prostitute the facts about GM food, because they are being paid by commercial companies with a vested interest in profiting from the technology, he says: "Anybody who did that would be destroying his or her career. We have nothing to hide and the safety requirements are enormous, even at the experimental stage."

"What we are doing is for the public good. We are seeking to show in these experiments whether or not the technology is safe and, as scientists, we are certainly not in the maw of big business. We have no axe to grind and all the science will have to stand on its own merits."

The Department of Environment project will look at three crops - maize, spring grown oilseed rape, and winter sown oilseed rape - involving around 25 comparative trials in each of these "big area" crops where GM material is readily available, so that the full impact on the ecology can be assessed. Each crop will be examined in the same way to "very precise standards". Once the results are known the three research bodies concerned will produce a combined report for the Government, who will then be responsible for deciding what course of action should follow.

"The reason we're involved in this study commissioned by the Government is because we think it's important to generate hard scientific information about GM crops," declares Professor Howard Davies, acting deputy director of the SCRI who will be chairing one of the sessions at the conference. "This will allow the public to make up their own minds about the technology. So let's get all the scientific facts before making any value judgements."

Supporting calls for full information, and the labelling of GM food in the shops, so that the consumer can decide on a factual basis, he points out: "After all scientists are also consumers and, like everyone else, we want to be informed when we go shopping for food."

Endorsing the argument that GM technology has the potential to benefit both farmer and consumer, he explains: "It can guarantee consistent supplies of high quality material - and therefore guarantee a market for the farmer's produce. Certainly that's the way it tends to work in America, where they seem to have more guaranteed avenues for their products as long as the quality is consistent."

The SCRI acting deputy also confesses to being puzzled by the confrontation between organics and GM foods. Since organic growers prefer not to use agrochemicals in the production of their crops - and GM crops provide a way of doing just that - he contends the two should be "natural partners" rather than in a constant state of conflict.

Returning to his earlier theme, Dr Macfarlane Smith says the debate about GM foods, and the potential offered by the technology, is only beginning - but he predicts that in 20 years time farmers will be growing genetically modified crops alongside those produced by conventional or organic systems, thus giving consumers the choice.

"If you look logically at GM technology it is something which is going to be of great value not only to farmers and consumers, but also to the UK and world economy. We are looking at a doubling of the world's population in the next 30 years and, since the existing methods of agriculture cannot feed the present population, if we carry on as we are then we'll be consigning many more people to starvation.

"I don't believe that will happen because some countries - such as China where there's a huge development taking place - are pressing on vigorously with genetically modified crops. In terms of food quality and nutrition we are also entering a very interesting stage.
"Once you identify the factors which are good or bad for us in our food, genetic modification gives us the tool to change that by manipulating plants. For example, it should be possible to develop a non-allergenic peanut which won't kill people."

Turning to this week's SAC conference on genetically modified crops and the environment, he says it is an attempt to "open up the debate" so that all the factors can come out - and not just the selective facts that some members of the green movement have chosen to present to the public. It will also try to approach the subject on a more rational and less emotive basis. Whereas the random nature of old-fashioned, traditional methods of plant breeding have been categorised as crossing with the best -and hoping for the best - modern techniques like genetic modification allow plant breeders to change one or two particular characteristics.

They are more scientific, more focused, and perhaps at the end of the day safer, according to Dr Macfarlane Smith who uses the analogy of a 100-storey building, stacked with books from top to bottom, where someone is talking about changing only a few pages.

"We know the number of genes in any organism and we know what we're changing," he states. "Relatively simple organisms will have 70,000 genes in them and with GM technology we might be changing only one of that large number."

"I don't see anything wrong with people having the choice of GM foods. If we had a wholesale switch to organic production the cost of food would rise by 40 per cent, which is fine if you have a lot of money. But if you're already on the breadline a 40 per cent increase would be seriously bad news.
The choice for the public, therefore, is do they want food that is cheap, nutritious and safe?"