WE ARE agnostic on the merits or demerits of genetically modified food, the scientific potential versus risks involved, or the consumer benefits or reputational bounty or damage of Scotland declaring itself to be “GM-free.”

All sides of the argument might be able to make a persuasive case. GM use may lead our agriculture to the sunlit uplands, or condemn our vital food sector to worldwide consumer hell. We don’t know.

Our problem is that the Government doesn’t know either. It made a political decision to declare Scotland “GM-free” without bothering to ask our scientists whether they agree.

We support the precautionary principle that says changes such as any move towards GM should have any potential risks evaluated. This is why we side wholeheartedly with the Royal Society of Edinburgh when it calls for a review of the decision, employing rational debate, and above all drawing on best scientific advice.

The RSE believes Ministers risk being branded “anti-science” for the way they have gone about the GM ban, saying: “The RSE is strongly of the view that expert scientific advice should be available to government ministers and civil servants when considering policy issues related to science.”

Tellingly, they argue that question marks over consultation with the chief scientific adviser suggest otherwise, and that the failure to appoint a new Chief Scientific Advisor is now a key part of the problem.

“This regrettable coincidence could create a perception of an 'anti-science attitude’,” say the RSE, with which we can only concur. Clever and strategic withdrawal from a bad place is a hallmark of the best politicians and we hope the First Minister can find a way to back out of this one, as it is a stinker.

The irony is that Ministers may be right. They point out that other countries such as Germany are going down the same route as Scotland. But are they ignoring scientific advice too?

Let us be clear, we are not convinced by the other side either. 

The Scottish Government insists that its move to block the cultivation of GM foods on our farms does not prevent continuing research on GM foods in our universities. But how convincing is that?

We quote Professor Nigel Brown, a fellow of the RSE "Scotland is renowned for its world-class scientific research therefore it would be regrettable to stigmatise an area of exciting development which provides real scope for global benefit.”

He added, in terms which Ministers will find hard to ignore: “The RSE recognises that the Scottish Government supports science and innovation as the bedrock of the Scottish economy and as a key basis for policy-making, therefore it would welcome the opportunity to contribute to a wider debate around the use of GM.”

That wider debate might conclude that the GM ban was justified, but we agree with the RSE that it is an informed debate which must take place.