British ministers last night insisted consumer safety remained their number one priority, amid mounting public controversy and concern over genetically modified (GM) foods.
The Prime Minister, Mr Blair, spent the day insisting his Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury, would not be "hounded" from office, after newspaper allegations about his links with a company controlling the worldwide patent rights over a key gene used in the genetic modification process.
And Mr Blair's close relationship with President Clinton was dragged into the row last night, as the Conservative leader, Mr William Hague, accused the government of mishandling the issue, and demanded Lord Sainsbury's dismissal because of "a clear conflict of interests". As an unprecedented coalition of 29 consumer, health, environmental and development groups started a campaign for a five-year moratorium on the introduction of GM foods, Lord Sainsbury insisted that he absented himself from all government "discussions or decisions" relating to genetically modified food policy.
Lord Sainsbury accepted that his massive shareholding in his family firm, the supermarket giant J Sainsbury plc, gave him a likely interest in the success of GM food, even though all his shares had been placed in a "blind trust" following his appointment to the government.
That was why he had pledged to take no part in government discussions on the issue, a decision which led him to leave a meeting on February 3rd of the Cabinet Committee charged with considering "issues relating to biotechnology, in particular those arising from genetic modification". Lord Sainsbury denied a Guardian report that he had owned the patent for the cauliflower mosaic virus, saying that was owned by the GM food giant, Monsanto. Before becoming a minister, Lord Sainsbury had owned a patent on "a biotechnology product called a translator enhancer". This had been declared in the Register of Members Interests and subsequently transferred to the blind trust run by his family lawyer. "A blind trust means that shares are held by an independent trustee who has the power to buy and sell them, and that I have no knowledge of what shares are in the blind trust," he said: "I therefore do not know whether I own a patent or not."
However, as the Department of Trade and Industry confirmed he had chaired a meeting last December about public attitudes to GM food, the shadow Trade Secretary, Mr John Redwood, said: "Lord Sainsbury has a lot of explaining to do. A minister either has to sell all his shares or avoid contact with issues related to them. When is this minister going to obey the rules?"
And having forced an emergency Commons statement by the Deputy Agriculture Minister, Mr Jeff Rooker, the Conservative spokesman, Mr Tim Yeo, tried to extend the attack to Mr Blair himself, suggesting he was "under pressure from President Clinton, who is known to be close to Monsanto on this subject". Mr Rooker told MPs there would be "no free-for-all" in the planting of GM crops on a commercial basis. And he insisted there was "a robust system for ensuring the consumer is fully protected". Responding to Mr Yeo's emergency question, Mr Rooker said all GM foods and ingredients went through "very thorough scrutiny" by experts before release: "No food comes onto the market unless it is safe."
But Mr Rooker's assurances were dismissed last night by the Greenpeace Director, Mr John Sauven. "No news, no movement, this was a waste of parliament's time," he said.
Clearly irritated by the direction of the public debate, Mr Blair accused the Tories of "total opportunism and hypocrisy" and vowed: "Whatever the stampede . . . we will resist it."
His government would proceed "with great care and caution, and with a strongly regulatory process," said Mr Blair: "However, to rush to rule out GM food altogether, to impose some ban would be extremely foolish."