This is in stark contrast to most European countries, where such crops are banned or severely restricted and are regularly trashed by green vandals even when grown for research. But there are worrying signs that US policy is about to change.

Outside Europe, GM has been applied more rapidly and extensively than any other new technology in the history of farming. In 1996 GM crops covered some 1.7 million hectares worldwide. By 2009 the figure was 134 million hectares, much of it in the developing world. Various crops that will help reduce disease and hunger are nearing commercial cultivation, from golden rice that can prevent children going blind to crops that may help farmers in Africa cope with drought and avoid losses from pests and diseases.

GM cultivation has been most intensive in the US. Nearly all soya, cotton and corn in the country is now genetically modified, benefitting consumers, farmers and the environment. Herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops have reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides, promoted no-till farming – so reducing soil erosion and carbon dioxide emissions – and have increased yields.

Contamination rules

However, a coalition of anti-GM activists and a small but growing number of organic farmers are now making their influence felt in the US. In 2005, after field trials lasting eight years, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant alfalfa. The decision was challenged by activists, but after a lengthy review the USDA concluded that GM alfalfa should cause no concern for regulators, farmers or consumers. Nevertheless, under pressure from this coalition, the department is now considering strict rules on where the crops may be planted, to prevent “contamination” by GM seeds blown into fields of conventionally or organically grown alfalfa. A decision is expected this week.

The signs are not good. At a congressional hearing last Thursday, secretary for agriculture Tom Vilsack for science-based policy and biotechnology, but ominously added that he supported the cultivation of organic products and would seek “co-existence” between GM and organic farmers. That implies restrictions on GM alfalfa to prevent contamination of organic fields. Farmers and companies that use and sell GM seeds and invest in research reasonably fear that if restrictions are imposed on GM alfalfa, limits on other GM crops will follow, and US policy will begin to converge with that of Europe.

Opposition to GM by green and organic lobbies is one of the main reasons why so many European Union countries ban or restrict their cultivation. It is a movement against science. The world’s leading science academies have all concluded that, after 15 years of cultivation and consumption by millions of people, there is no evidence that GM crops harm human health or the environment.

By contrast the organic movement is based on the scientific fallacy that natural chemicals are good and synthetic chemicals bad. It ignores evidence and has consistently failed to substantiate any of its own claims. A meticulous review sponsored by the UK’s Food Standards Agency recently found no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than conventionally grown food ().

Organic waste

Meanwhile, irrational rules deem that crops containing traces of genes from GM crops via cross-pollination cannot be certified as organic. These rules can be, and have been, invoked to stop the cultivation of GM crops.

As for claims that organic farming is better for the environment, yields from organic farms are generally 20 to 50 per cent lower than those from conventional farms. Organic farming makes less efficient use of land while the world desperately needs the exact opposite.

Encouraged by the European Commission, which has confirmed scientific support for GM crops, attitudes in some EU countries are changing. In the UK more friendly noises issue from the agricultural ministry, and the government’s chief scientist, John Beddington, has stated that GM crops have a vital part to play in feeding the world. Meanwhile sales of organic food have declined. But if the US changes tack, green objectors will appear vindicated. Their influence in Europe will be enhanced and the consequences will be far-reaching. It will be a triumph for unreason.

If politicians can find the courage to defy a hostile press, a rational policy on drugs will not only be possible but ultimately popular too, says Dick Taverne

ASKED by Galileo to look through his telescope at the newly discovered four moons of Jupiter, a representative of the pope answered: “I refuse to look at something which my religion tells me cannot exist.” The attitude of most western governments to the harm caused by recreational drugs is not dissimilar.

This attitude is exemplified by the UK government’s response to a recent report by the , led by former government adviser David Nutt. The report is a methodical analysis of the harm caused by different drugs, not only to the user but also to others and society at large (). Its conclusions are broadly similar to those of an earlier study by Nutt () and of one by drug addiction experts in the Netherlands.

The committee found that crack cocaine and heroin were the most harmful to the individual, but on the overall scale of harm, alcohol easily came top because of the violence, crime, road accidents, police time, job losses and relationship problems associated with its use.

Seen in this light, the UK’s system of classifying harmful drugs has no basis in evidence. Ecstasy and LSD, which are among the least harmful, are classified with the most harmful such as heroin and crack cocaine. Cannabis is classified in the second highest category, listed as seriously harmful, although its effect on individuals and others is relatively mild. Alcohol and tobacco are of course not included at all.

When I challenged the government in the House of Lords to reconsider its present system of classification in the light of the new report and take much stronger action against the abuse of alcohol, I was met by a blank refusal. I was told that there is no consensus about what constitutes evidence, that all classified drugs are extremely harmful to society, that the government must provide a stable and enduring system, and that the current system continues to serve that purpose.

In effect, the government’s message echoed the answer of the pope’s representative: “We refuse to look at the evidence because our policy is fixed and that tells us the evidence cannot be true.”

So we continue to fill our jails – which are already fuller than in any other European Union country – with drug users, even though the link between criminal penalties and drug use is weak. When for a while the penalties for possessing cannabis were downgraded in England, use of cannabis declined. This does not prove that lower penalties caused the decline, but they certainly do not inevitably result in increased use.

“We continue to fill our jails with drug users even though the link between use and penalties is weak”

Other countries have had similar experiences. After the end of the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal in 1974, there was an explosion of drug use that accompanied the new freedom. On the advice of an expert committee, the Portuguese government decided in 2000 to decriminalise drug use and concentrate on education and rehabilitation. Drug use has steadily declined, again suggesting that removing penalties has no adverse effects.

In the Netherlands, drug use has not been formally decriminalised but the law is seldom enforced and the emphasis is on education and rehabilitation. The use of hard drugs there is about a third of that in the UK.

Why do so many governments, including the UK’s, continue to act irrationally? It seems to be from fear of public opinion – especially fear that they may be accused by influential sections of the popular press of being soft on crime.

Yet there are good grounds for believing that these fears are misplaced. Some polls suggest that UK public opinion favours some easing of penalties for the possession of drugs. Furthermore, even where public opinion is hostile, experience has shown that policy changes based on evidence usually win support in the long run. Opinions can change, and some issues have little effect on how people vote.

For example, when it was proposed in the UK that there should be strict limits on the permitted level of alcohol in the blood while driving, change was unpopular and strongly opposed by the powerful motorists’ lobby. Once enacted, the law proved popular. The compulsory use of seat belts and London’s congestion charge met similar opposition but proved popular once enacted by bold politicians.

What is more, politicians who defy popular opinion do not necessarily suffer at the ballot box. This was tested in the 1970s when a senior policeman was murdered in Blackpool and his widow organised a hugely popular campaign for restoring the death penalty for the murder of a police officer. One of the town’s MPs supported the campaign while the other bravely opposed it. At the general election soon afterwards, both MPs increased their vote – but the one who opposed the campaign increased his by more.

In the 2001 general election, the Conservative party made “save the pound” the main issue of its campaign and the British public was all for saving it. Yet the Conservatives lost decisively. The fate of the pound proved not to be an issue that decided votes.

The message is that governments can afford to be much bolder in defying the popular press and even public opinion on some issues, of which drugs policy is likely to be one. John Stuart Mill wrote that “wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to facts and arguments”. It may take time, but in a democracy those who base their case on strong evidence and are prepared to argue for it with conviction are likely to prevail in the end. A sensible policy on the use of drugs is not a hopeless cause.