Leading Article: A small helping of humble pie for the Prime Minister

Wednesday 17 February 1999 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

LORD SAINSBURY says that any direct financial interest that he may have in biotechnology is held in a blind trust and is therefore above board, or at least below concern. He also says that he is an enthusiast for scientific advancement, including biotechnology.

There's the rub. We can accept, on the evidence so far, that the Science Minister has behaved properly. We can understand that, unlike Lord Simon and his BP shares, Lord Sainsbury cannot unload his huge, billion-pound personal shareholdings. A blind trust is the approved solution to this dilemma.

But this still leaves a minister intimately connected with the food trade, who is personally enthusiastic about bio-engineering and its potential for British business, right at the heart of a government that has come under heavy fire for its policy on the issue. The very fact that Lord Sainsbury said that he had had to absent himself from a recent Cabinet committee meeting on biotechnology gives the lie to Downing Street's suggestion that he is really concerned with science and not food.

It's no good the Prime Minister dismissing, as he did yesterday, the whole furore as a storm in the media drinking-cup. The press may have made a right muddle of the science, and got itself into a lather about much that has been here for years. It could even be accused of making far more than it should have done out of a potential conflict of interest in Lord Sainsbury's case. There is something unhealthy at the moment in the press's desire to hound a man as soon as it scents blood.

But what cannot be waved away is the simple fact that people are instinctively concerned by anything that messes around with what they and their children eat. They worry - rightly or wrongly - about the safety of their food. They distrust, the more so after BSE, scientific pronouncements and the value of government assurances. They not only want testing of new technology to be carried out, they want it to be seen to be carried out. And they worry about developments pushed by large corporations.

Which brings us back to Lord Sainsbury. It is not his fault that he is embroiled in this mess. He is, by all accounts, a decent, honourable chap who wants to be left alone to do his job and promote science in industry. There is, at this stage, no reason why he should resign. Tony Blair is right about that.

But the Prime Minister must learn from this food furore. First, he should start to appreciate that people have legitimate concerns about the food that ends up in their bellies. And second, he must understand that while businessmen can bring certain fresh qualities to government, they're not omniscient and can lead to more trouble than they are worth.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in