'GM is one of those things that divides people.'
Princess Anne has spoken in favour of the use of genetically modified (GM) crops, arguing the technology has real benefits
The real question is just how long GM will take to die, how many further environmental problems it will cause in going, and how much more research money which is desperately needed for projects which are actually useful for farmers will be wasted before the Government and many scientists in a country like England realise that they are wasting their time, and all too often, your money.
'Hype' might be more likely built up around the latest boyband, but many emerging technologies also rely on good marketing to bring in investment and support. Science might not get the queues (apart from the Apple store) but in the same way Apple has fumbled with the iPhone 6, many technologies are subject to a major backlash.
The concerns about GM biotechnology are, it seems, similar to those engendered by nuclear accidents: after the immediate devastation comes the anxiety about the long term effects. The fallout associated with genetic engineering is involving us in a something which could be even more far reaching than radioactive pollution.
There was an odd reaction from the National Farmers' Union (NFU) at their Birmingham Conference this week to proposals for controlled floodwater attenuation in upland farms (and elsewhere); condemning such plans as "ludicrous".
Governments, businesses and individuals are trying to identify how best to address the fact that current approaches to operations are not only driving this change but may also be fundamentally unsustainable in the long term.
"Wicked" opponents of genetically modified food allow children to "go blind and die because of a hang-up by a small number
Nick Clegg has said he does not "knowingly" give his children GM food and said the government should take a "cautious" approach
Environment Secretary Owen Paterson is set to reopen the controversy over genetically modified crops with a speech extolling