As a scientist, I was automatically excited when genetic engineering was mooted in the early 1990s. The concept of transferring a gene from one organism to another to enhance growth, improve pest resistance and improve nutritional quality was compelling.
Compared with traditional plant breeding techniques, (cross-pollination and mutagenesis - using radiation and chemicals to induce mutations), it seemed like a breakthrough. Genetically engineered tomato paste even enjoyed reasonable sales in the early days. But I became concerned when the public relations professionals swapped the technical term 'genetically modified' for the softer genetic modification (GM).
The press caught wind, and Frankenstein got his own range of food ingredients! GM joined irradiation in the museum of excellent technologies rejected by the public.
But with pessimistic reports about global warming and associated food security issues, is it time to reconsider GM as a way of increasing food production?
GM technologies are now much more sophisticated. We can control the exact location of an inserted transgene, which is much better for safety and traceability than the old techniques. GM crops were commercialised 13 years ago and have been consumed by millions of consumers with no ill effects and the predicted environmental disasters have not materialised.
But, the key issue remains: consumer acceptance. About 10-15% of people support GM, 10-30% hate it and most people don't even think about it.
In developing countries, the argument for GM crops that are drought-resistant, pest-resistant and nutritionally enhanced is compelling. But in the West we face an obesity crisis, so do we need more food?
Until consumers see the benefits of GM, it will be a brave food firm that takes the first step in marketing GM products.
''Dr Paul Berryman Chief executive officer Leatherhead Food Research www.leatherheadfood.com''