The Michael Meacher article from the New Scientist below says the process for evaluating GM in the UK is riddled with flaws and omissions, and is more about spinning a line than uncovering the truth.

Take, for instance, the much hyped GM farm-scale evaluations. They "have been presented as the authoritative test of the impact of GM crops on the environment. They are nothing of the kind." In reality, they have been carefully designed to test the environmental impacts of GM crops under optimal conditions unrepresentative of how farmers actually behave under commercial pressures.

Meacher's analysis of the character of the decision making process on GM in the UK discloses a terrain where overwhelming public opposition meets substantial corporate influence, insubstantial evidence, regulatory collusion, and a total lack of caution.

These are - lest we forget - the conclusions of a man at the heart of government for the last 6 years.

Here's a summary, with our sub-headings, by way of excerpts from the article:
---
Flaws and omissions
With all the reports and consultations, there ought to be plenty of evidence on  which to base a decision. Don't be fooled: it's not that simple.

GM Nation? Who's listening?
The government insists GM Nation is a "listen and learn" exercise. But how will it listen? If it hears overwhelming opposition to GM, will it still give GM the green light on the grounds that it knows better?

Farm-scale evaluation trials? A fix.
The government appears to set great store by the outcome of the farm-scale evaluation trials, also due to be published in September. The trials have been presented as the authoritative test of the impact of GM crops on the environment. They are nothing of the kind. They were carefully designed to test the environmental impacts of GM crops under optimal conditions. As a result, they do not reflect how farmers actually behave under the commercial pressures of the marketplace, where the focus is on maximising yields rather than protecting the environment.

Science review? Where's the evidence?
Last week, the government published its review of current scientific knowledge about GM. This recognised that there are substantial gaps in this knowledge. For example, it is not at all clear how GM products could affect human health, because systematic clinical evidence of the health and biochemical impacts of eating GM food has never been collected.

Costs and Benefits? No benefits at present.
The government has also been looking at the economic costs and benefits of GM. Significantly, the report by the prime minister's Strategy Unit, published  last month, concluded that there was no economic case for GM in the UK at present.

Advisory bodies? Links to industry.
Once all the reports have been finalised, they will be filtered through the government's advisory bodies and presented to ministers. Alarmingly, corporate interests could have a substantial influence here: it is known, for example, that more than three-quarters of the members of the committee that advises ministers on food safety have direct links to major food and drug companies.

Ministerial subcommittee on biotechnology? Not a hint of caution. The process concludes with behind-the-scenes discussions in Downing Street, which are then played out at the ministerial subcommittee on biotechnology -- where the government formally makes its decision. Significantly, not a single member of this committee is a GM sceptic, and several are GM enthusiasts.

Iraq mark 2?
It would be a tragedy if GM were to become Iraq mark 2, with the government ploughing ahead regardless despite insubstantial evidence and the overwhelming opposition of the population.
---
On stony ground
New Scientist August 2, 2003
Comment and Analysis; Pg. 21

The British government's evaluation of genetically modified crops is riddled with flaws and omissions, claims former environment minister Michael Meacher

Michael Meacher MP was minister of state for the environment from 1997 until June this year

DECIDING whether or not to allow the commercial growing of genetically modified crops in the UK should be, you might think, a straightforward matter. With all the reports and consultations, there ought to be plenty of evidence on which to base a decision. Don't be fooled: it's not that simple.

Let's start with the recent public debate, GM Nation, the results of which are due in September. The government insists GM Nation is a "listen and learn" exercise. But how will it listen? If it hears overwhelming opposition to GM, will it still give GM the green light on the grounds that it knows better?

The government appears to set great store by the outcome of the farm-scale evaluation trials, also due to be published in September. The trials have been presented as the authoritative test of the impact of GM crops on the environment. They are nothing of the kind. They were carefully designed to test the environmental impacts of GM crops under optimal conditions. As a result, they do not reflect how farmers actually behave under the commercial pressures of the marketplace, where the focus is on maximising yields rather than protecting the environment. They exclude, for example, questions about herbicide residues in soils and direct feeding trials for birds.

Last week, the government published its review of current scientific knowledge about GM. This recognised that there are substantial gaps in this knowledge. For example, it is not at all clear how GM products could affect human health, because systematic clinical evidence of the health and biochemical impacts of eating GM food has never been collected. The oft-repeated mantra from the government and its scientific advisory committees, notably the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, is that there is no evidence of any greater risk from a GM product than from its non-GM counterpart.

This is the notorious concept of "substantial equivalence", whereby biotechnology companies look at the levels of various nutrients, allergens and toxins in a GM plant and compare them with levels in its non-GM counterpart. If the levels are similar, they deem the GM plant safe in all respects. Yet substantial equivalence was originally a marketing term and has no scientific underpinning whatsoever.

What people want to know is not whether their GM food is substantially equivalent to something else, but whether it is inherently completely safe. They want to know whether the whole gamut of tests has been carried out until its safety can be established beyond any reasonable doubt. This has not happened.

The point is often made that Americans have been eating GM food since 1996. This is true, but again no epidemiological monitoring of the long-term clinical or biochemical effects has been carried out. Scientific and medical institutions have expressed serious reservations about GM food. The Royal Society said GM "could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods". The British Medical Association stated that "any conclusion on the safety of introducing GM materials into the UK is premature as there is insufficient evidence to inform the decision-making process at the moment". And the Medical Research Council has suggested GM could switch on "silent" genes whose effects we either know little about or know to be toxic.

The government has also been looking at the economic costs and benefits of GM. Significantly, the report by the prime minister's Strategy Unit, published last month, concluded that there was no economic case for GM in the UK at present. "Negative consumer attitudes can be expected to limit the demand for products containing GM foods, and therefore the economic value of the current generation of GM crops," it noted.

So, far from being comprehensive and conclusive, the process for evaluating GM in the UK turns out to be riddled with flaws and omissions, and more about spinning a line than uncovering the truth. It would be a tragedy if GM were to become Iraq mark 2, with the government ploughing ahead regardless despite insubstantial evidence and the overwhelming opposition of the population.

The final act takes place when the government makes its decision later this year. Once all the reports have been finalised, they will be filtered through the government's advisory bodies and presented to ministers. Alarmingly, corporate interests could have a substantial influence here: it is known, for example, that more than three-quarters of the members of the committee that advises ministers on food safety have direct links to major food and drug companies.

The process concludes with behind-the-scenes discussions in Downing Street, which are then played out at the ministerial subcommittee on biotechnology -- where the government formally makes its decision. Significantly, not a single member of this committee is a GM sceptic, and several are GM enthusiasts.

Where does that leave GM democracy?