It has been a grim year for consumer confidence, not least in genetically modified (GM) foods. The discovery in the United States this week that millions of taco shells need to be recalled owing to contamination by potentially allergenic Aventis corn follows on the heels of the episode in May when the Canadian exporter Advanta Seeds accidentally sent GM oilseed-rape seeds to Sweden and the United Kingdom. Couple that to the fact that the international media-tailored campaigns of crop destruction by Greenpeace and others find ready sympathy with much of the public, and GM proponents might contemplate throwing in the towel. The bizarre but unanimous verdict by a British jury last week that such destruction can be lawful, reportedly influenced by a visible sympathy of the jury with Peter Melchett and his Greenpeace co-defendants, sets the seal on such a pessimistic perspective (see page 438 ). Is there hope for those who, like Nature, adopt an open-minded attitude to the scientific assessment of this technology but also anticipate many benefits from its judicious application?

Uncertainties about the cause of the Advanta contamination are delaying the outcome of a review by the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the crop-separation distances required to achieve acceptably low levels of cross-pollination. But there is no indication that the tens to hundreds of metres recommended for the government's farm-scale trials reflect an underestimation of cross-pollination levels. These trials, the targets of Greenpeace's action, are intended to test the hypothesis that the introduction of maize, sugar beet and oilseed rape, modified for herbicide resistance, will not significantly affect biodiversity. Although it is arguable that they are an excuse for the government to delay the commercial introduction of GM crops, there is no doubt that they could play a leading role in addressing relevant ecological questions. Most positively, they may point to ways in which GM crops could encourage biodiversity.

But for anti-GM fundamentalists such as some of those in Greenpeace, and for many with vested interests in organic farming, such knowledge is irrelevant. Tying their beliefs to misleading sound bites about potential risks, constantly exploiting fears and misunderstandings about DNA in food, and in the absence as yet of clear benefits from the technology, they have successfully captured much public sympathy.

But that sympathy can quickly evaporate, especially when the public recognizes the manipulation of information — by industry or anti-technology campaigners — for what it is, as has happened in consensus conferences. More potential benefits of GM crops can be expected to emerge, and one can reasonably expect that problems revealed by the science will, as with any technology, lead to appropriate regulation. In short, public confidence can grow, given a chance.

In the meantime, far better public presentation of the state of the science and stricter regulatory precautions are required in Europe. In Britain, the centre of so much debate, the transparency of advice, contrary to general belief, is good (see, for example, http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk ), as is the willingness of scientists to talk at public meetings. But much of that is ignored in the midst of media heat. The fledgling Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission should try to ensure that, as happened during the BSE crisis, advisory bodies respond rapidly to media debates with informed comment and information.

The thresholds of acceptability of some presence of GM product in organic produce need to be pursued as a priority. It is here that the technical and social issues underlying the inherent conflict between organic farming and other types of agriculture can be resolved with a compromise acceptable to most. This will in turn introduce an additional element of rationality when considering the real and apparent risks posed by GM crops.

And Europe's industry needs to speak rather than, as happens too often, remain silent — and to be less careless than their US and Canadian colleagues in controlling the standards of their products.