Many people seem to have no idea what genetic modification is and this includes some farmers who intend to grow GM crops, and receive £1,500 per hectare for growing it. The Department of the Environment's booklet 'GM Crops, Take a Closer Look' fails to describe what GM crops and seeds are – so much for closer look indeed.

GM apologists have given the impression that genetic modification is only what animal and plant breeders have been doing for generations. It is completely untrue that genetic modification is the same or even similar to traditional breeding. Traditional breeding is the judicious mating of like species to like species.

Genetic engineering is the artificial manipulation of genes. Genes are taken from the DNA of one organism and inserted into the DNA of another organism and not always of the same species. For example, a gene from a fish has been put into a tomato. And the genes used in genetic modification are not 'naturally occuring.' They are artificial genes specially created to break down natural barriers. It is a very clear operation but it is not a precise – one it is imprecise, unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Once the genie is let out of the bottle it will not be possible to recall it. Perhaps this is the reason why the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture are so reluctant to describe what GM is.

Genetic modification, seed suppliers and grain merchants are coming under the control of giant companies such as Monsanto that started out selling chemicals. It is hard to believe that such companies are engaged in an exercise which will reduce the use of fungicides, herbicides and insecticides and thus benefit the environment. In fact, since GM crops were introduced in the United States, farmers have been using more pesticides and herbicides, not less. Herbicide-resistant GM plants can cross-pollenate with wild plants to create 'superweeds.' And Monsanto's 'New Leaf' potato incorporates pesticides in every cell and has to be registered itself as a pesticide.

'Golden rice' was engineered to produce vitamin A, on the face of it of great benefit to those whose staple diet is rice. But golden rice has not been a success and has been rejected. GM soya was heralded as the answer to world starvation has been found wanting and has been rejected.

Genetic engineers have discovered ways to stop seed germinating – the terminator. So seed saved after harvest cannot be used to grow another crop, new seed will have to be bought from the giant corporations. This would be a crippling blow to the Third World. It wouldn't be good for the rest of the world's farmers either. "What you are seeing" said Robert Harley of Monsanto in 1998, "is not just a consolidation, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain."

I am reminded of a thriller I read 50 or more years ago in which a group of men plotted to dominate the whole world.

One of the aims of the House of Commons Refreshment Department is "to avoid, wherever identifiable, the procurement of foods which contain genetically modified organisms." (Hansard, July 20, 1998). Nevertheless this year the Government has planned 25 sites of GM oilseed rape and GM maize and 30 sites for GM beet.

The expected total cost of trials is expected to be £4.4 million and funded by taxpayers' money. Why UK taxpayers should foot the cost of what is really a commercial project is not explained, although a Ministry of Agriculture spokesperson said if the UK doesn't have these trials the UK will be left behind, rather a lame excuse when GM crops and foods are being rejected already, here and elsewhere. Several supermarkets are rejecting GM foods and even the Monsanto staff canteen UK caterers have delivered Monsanto the final insult by banning genetically modified food from GM giant's own staff canteen "in response to concern raised by our customers." (December 22, 1999 BBC news report).

These current trials, which include one at Blaisdon, are a sop to the public or shall I say the thin edge of the wedge, designed to see if herbicide resistant GM crops will be worse for wildlife than management of non GM-crops.

They are not designed to investigate if GM crops are safe for humans or farm livestock, cross-pollenation with nearby crops, the environmental impact of GM crops and so forth.

In short, human and all other forms of life, willy-nilly, whether we like it or not, are the subjects of an experiment. Without consultation or consent. Is this New Democracy?