This has been interesting for those who follow politics and the countryside.

The report into the impact of Genetically Modified Organisms on the Countryside has concluded that this generation of modified organisms present no threat. Imagine our surprise?

It is going to be very difficult for proponents to establish that there will really be no damage, as long as there is so much chatter and so little genuine scientific inquiry. The heat generated on this issue seems to be designed to obscure rational debate.

In that sense the opponents of genetic modification win, without having to bother to establish facts.

However, even if there is no damage to the environment I cannot see that the most consumers, certainly not generally well-fed Western European consumers, actually want to eat genetically modified fruits or vegetables.

The same applies to meats fed on modified organisms. The chances of avoiding genetically modified animal feed are not too good. Most soya and much maize is genetically modified. Both are major components of animal feed. It is possible, but difficult, to avoid meat fed on such feed. However, if people do not want to eat genetically modified feed they should not be forced to do so.

It may be interesting for scientists to research into genetic modification. It may be profitable for multi-nationals to invest in genetic modification and support President Bush's re-election campaign with those profits.

It may make Prime Minister Blair happy to present himself as being in favour of change and what he probably thinks of as modernisation. An incidental advantage for him is that he appears to be on the side of his American friends.

None of these are sufficient reason for growing genetically modified crops if the consumer does not want them. The consumer is king, whether we like it or not. Satisfying the consumer's wants, however irrational, is why everyone is in business.

Is it wrong to support home producers against foreign ones? The present argument over sugar is a straightforward matter of a number of different interest groups lining up against each other.

Sugar beet is grown in this country. The output of the factories, scattered throughout the country, amounts to about half the sugar eaten in this country. It is marketed under the Silver Spoon brand. The rest of the sugar eaten in this country comes from cane sugar imported by Tate and Lyle.

These are the traditional rivals for the UK market. There is a great deal of pressure for the EU scheme to be dismantled because it supports EU farmers.

The argument goes that the scheme works against the Third World sugar farmers and should be abandoned for that reason. But do not imagine reductions in price to primary producers will result in price cuts in the shops. It does not normally, so probably will not in this case.

The only discernible result for the UK will be that sugar beet growers will no longer be able to afford to grow the crop and presumably the factories will close. Jobs will be lost and some long-term business will disappear.

Despite sustained lobbying, during many years, it does not seem possible to persuade the Government that this is against the UK's best interest. I find it quite difficult, when faced with a question of whether UK or foreign opportunities should be supported, to believe the latter are more important.

The sugar dealers would prosper and UK farmers suffer. That's not right.

Updated: 10:23 Tuesday, July 22, 2003