It would have been unrealistic to expect any dramatic conclusions from last week's three-day meeting on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foodstuffs, hosted by the UK government and run jointly with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; see page 112 ). Conceived at the height of vocal demands last year for a global moratorium on the commercial planting of GM foods, its main function was to help lower the temperature of a debate that was rapidly leading to a trade war. In this it appears to have succeeded. But many of the gaps between those keen to promote such technologies and their critics remain as wide as ever.

Any attempt to establish a permanent forum in which the dialogue can continue, as proposed at the end of the meeting, could be ineffectual for those reasons. Broad differences in philosophy remain — for example, between those convinced that GM crops hold the key to meeting the food requirements of the Third World, and others who say they are unnecessary because the problem is primarily one of food distribution. Such differences will not be resolved by a discussion whose starting point is the science behind safety issues. They require a broader agenda and more mutual trust between participants — or at least more common ground over the facts and practicalities.

Nor should one be seduced by the simplistic argument that what worked for climate change will also work for GM crops. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was able to organize much of its work around a single question — whether there is a man-made component of current global warming — to which many scientists already felt they had, if not the answer, then a great deal to contribute. ‘Is GM food safe?’ is a very different type of question, requiring elements of judgement that cannot be resolved through data and simulations alone.

More positively, an international panel could present political decision-makers with conclusions shorn of the more excessive claims of either the proponents or critics of GM foods. Thus, it could play a useful role in identifying the key issues at stake, for example on the implications for human health or environmental safety.

Achieving this does not require starting from the science, even though scientific judgements as to which claims are more plausible than others would be a major component in such a panel's deliberations, and could help establish important new scientific agendas to sustain public confidence. An equally important component would be the trust in the process held by stakeholders in the debate. Here, openness, transparency and a commitment to priority consideration of the interests not only of commerce but also of consumers worldwide are crucial. So is the willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of a wide range of views, not just to listen to them politely. Any organization keen to take on responsibility for such a panel would do well to commit itself publicly to such requirements.

In offering itself as a candidate, the OECD has a lot to prove. The proceedings of an important conference held in 1997 on the controversial regulatory issue of substantial equivalence have only recently been de-restricted, not least because of the time it took to satisfy participating governments about the report's contents. That sort of track record, and a historical lack of time for anti-GM lobbyists, does not, on the face of it, bode well for the OECD's suitability to take responsibility for the stewardship of this highly charged debate.