I discovered the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) and its web-site in an article published in the Friday, June 9th 2000 edition of The Straits Times.

Several things caught my eye while visiting the web-site the first being, the GMAC categorically declaring that only 'rigorously tested' GM food crop are released into the world market.

Within the same web-site I also came across a link that lead me to a New Scientist article published on 16th June 1999, (the New Scientist is a reputable scientific journal assessable to laymen). In this article, which also happens to be the editorial, Alun Anderson, the editor, says that the often asked question "Are genetically-engineered foods safe?" has no general answer. It only stimulates another question: "What did they do to it?".

I became confused. With regards to testing, he says:

"These experiments reveal a serious problem that is only now being grasped by the biotechnology industry: standard toxicology tests don't work for food. It is often difficult to feed lab animals enough GM fodder, whether or not they find it palatable, to see if it has undesirable effects compared with unmodified food. Essentially, animal models are not sensitive enough to reveal small differences between modified and unmodified foods. Even if you manage to get animals to eat enough test food, you risk changing their diet so profoundly that even those eating unmodified food will be abnormal. For all but the most blatantly toxic GM foods, this may make it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions from such experiments."

The above quotes are in my opinion a fair representation of the situation I have come to realise the international GMO debate is in, inconclusive because of the lack of satisfactory testing methodologies.

Does the GMAC know of some "very rigorous tests" that have been developed since 16th June,1999 that can produce conclusive results about the safety of GM food crops to not just its consumers, but to the planetary environment as a whole?

The second thing that caught my eye was the statement that "Being equally concerned with food safety for their (developed countries) population, they would test the food and satisfy themselves that such genetically modified food crops are indeed safe before they will allow them into their countries."

For years, it was the developed countries that told the rest of the world that smoking tobacco did not cause cancer. They used "very rigorous tests, carried out over many years" to prove that smoking did not cause smokers any harm. Today cigarettes have to be labeled "smoking causes cancer" amongst other things and the rest is history.

It is prudent to remember that an integral part of the political model found in most developed democratic nations is one of lobbying. The tobacco industry happens to be very rich and therefore a very powerful lobby. For many years this lobby was able to sell their illusion to the rest of the world.

Singapore too is a developed nation. As a developed nation, the eyes of the rest of the world (or at least our neighbors) are on us just as for years, ours was on the ones that developed before us.

Singapore is a nation of consumers. By virtue of our size and the lack of a hinterland within our national boundaries, we have no choice but to be net consumers. Being a consumer is very powerful but this power comes with a responsibility. The responsibility extends beyond ourselves and our own well-being, but to all aspects of what we consume. In the final analysis, it is we consumers who dictate how producers of consumer goods manufacture their goods for use.

Singaporeans depend almost entirely on the government to protect their interests by creating organisations like the GMAC, CASE and SISIR. It is through public education and the scrutiny of such organisations that the Singapore consumer are protected and able to make informed and responsible decisions on their purchasing choices.

After my brief visit to GMAC's web-site I felt their contents were heavily biased in favor of GMOs. Their assumptions about "rigorous testing" in developed nations was simplistic. I am sure the committee's scientific credentials are impeccable, but I have some doubts as to their expertise in areas of the international politics of globalisation and money. I would expect them to use a more scientific methodology in deriving their assumptions and confining their opinions to testing methodologies and results rather then the way in which other nations make their decisions.

In short, the site was lobbying in favor of GMOs and their introduction into Singapore.

In 1998, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales published this statement on GMO in his web-site, "I am not convinced we know enough about the long-term consequences for human health and the environment of releasing plants (or, heaven forbid, animals) bred in this way. Prince Charles is a relatively intelligent fellow. I am sure he has at his disposal far more information and advice than is available to the average layperson both in the UK as well as here. I have not come across him reversing his decision since the date of publication.

Like Price Charles, I too am not "yet" convinced we know enough, but I am convinced that the stakes are very high.

I would like to suggest as a member of this developed nation that for credibility sake, the GMAC provide a more balanced view of the GMO debate and share with greater detail any certainty they might have that is not yet apparent to the rest of us.

To the Singapore consumer I would like to say that the most powerful lobby group in the world is the consumer. Exercise that power carefully as your children's future depends on it.