Would you like fries with that?

A few years ago, when I was an environmental policy adviser to the United Left group in the European Parliament, we fought tooth and nail to keep genetically modified organisms (GMOs) out of Europe's fields and off our plates.

I remember that when I wrote an article about this for the Morning Star the paper received a letter accusing me of being "anti-science."

In fact, the technology which enables the manipulation of the genomes of living beings is scarcely worthy of the name "science."

What science there is behind it is poorly understood.

In a society based on human need rather than corporate profit agricultural biotechnology would have its place. But that place, as things stand, would be firmly in the laboratory and certainly not in the open environment.

It is true that there is no definite proof that GMOs are harmful to health, though there is an enormous and growing amount of suggestive evidence.

If no-one had done the epidemiological research - the large-scale studies needed to establish links between behaviour, for example, and the incidence of disease - there would be no proof that tobacco is harmful to health.

As the only people with the resources to fund such studies are the corporations profiting from genetic manipulation, and the governments whose scientific research agenda such corporations now dictate, it's hardly surprising that these tests haven't been done.

Young molecular biologists looking for a research project also know full well that should they discover anything to the detriment of the corporate biotech giants they are likely to spend their lives asking not complex questions about the fabric of life but rather: "Would you like fries with that, sir?"

In fact, the European Union's basic approach to environmental and public health policy rests ostensibly on the "precautionary principle," which states quite clearly that a lack of scientific "proof" that something is harmful does not imply that it is safe.

It is up to those profiting from it to demonstrate that it is safe beyond reasonable doubt.

Morning Star readers will undoubtedly be astonished to hear that the EU routinely ignores its own precautionary principle.

The new European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli from the spud-exporting island of Malta, has shown how well cut out he is for the job by approving the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) potatoes.

This not only goes against the EU's own precautionary principle but against the known wishes of the population of the member states, almost every one of which has recorded a majority against the cultivation and marketing of GM products.

The spuds in question - a variety called Amflora - were created by BASF, the world's biggest chemical transnational, a firm said to have 100,000 employees.

I suppose it's some consolation that popular and parliamentary resistance at least meant that it took BASF 13 years of intense lobbying in Brussels and in national capitals before it saw its product approved.

These potatoes are, it's true, not meant to be eaten - even as junk-food "fries."

Their genomes are manipulated so that they produce high levels of the substances needed to make the kind of starch suitable for industrial use.

Unfortunately, the idea that they can be kept out of the food chain is a joke.

As anyone who has ever grown them will tell you, it is almost impossible, even on a small plot, to lift every scrap of every potato at the end of the growing season.

The following year whatever you've planted will be interspersed with "sports" - potato plants which have grown, as they will, from tiny overlooked spuds or even from bits accidentally sliced off when you're digging them.

It is absolutely certain that some of this material will find its way into the food chain.

Genetic pollution, unlike most other kinds, simply cannot be cleaned up.

Should more than traces be detected in anything intended for human consumption, BASF could be prosecuted. But the EU has authorised Amflora for animal feed, so GMOs could still end up inside anyone who isn't a vegan.

Recent research on "horizontal gene transfer" shows that the movement of genetic material between individuals and species is a much more complex affair than was previously assumed.

Moreover, these GM potatoes contain antibiotic-resistant genes which, it is feared, could enter the general environment reducing the efficacy of medicines vital to human and animal health.

The legislation on which I worked ended up, as usual, as a compromise. But we felt that we had done enough to afford at least some measure of protection.

Member states may, according to this legislation, refuse to authorise the cultivation of GMOs.

But remember, this is a "union without frontiers" so it's very difficult to prevent illicit imports.

Even if someone could "prove" that there are no safety fears, it is undeniable that GMOs present a major threat to biodiversity.

Once planted they compete with local crops and wild plants, potentially dominating an ecosystem.

Some GMOs produce poisons which harm not only target pest species but the benign and inoffensive as well.

Similarly, those which are designed to survive substances used to kill other plants encourage heavy dousing of weedkiller chemicals, which again can affect non-target species.

It is almost certain that the recent collapse of bee populations was linked to the excessive use of poisons in agriculture.

If GMOs were desperately needed in the face of global food shortages it might be worth the risk.

In fact, there is no global food shortage.

People go hungry because they are poor, not because there isn't enough to go round.