If every scientist was as flawless as some claim, they would always agree with each other and the likelihood of tragic error affecting the rest of us would be reassuringly small.

But mistakes do happen and what seems certain is that the more we learn, the less safe science becomes.

On the one hand scientists accept that much new science is shown to be at best incomplete or at worst plain wrong years later - indeed that is the essential nature of scientific progress.

On the other their "here and now" beliefs are held sacred and those who remain sceptical are branded hysterical or scare-mongering.

This is especially when a particular set of experimental results appears to support a government policy.

Each can conveniently justify the other's existence.

Although 90 per cent of the British public mistrust genetic engineering, we have recently heard that GM maize is set to be grown commercially in the UK.

Farm trials showed that GM maize was the only GM crop to do less damage to the environment than non-GM varieties but the comparison turns out to be deceptive.

Conventional maize is laced with a weedkiller called Atrazine, now considered so dangerous it's about to be banned across the entire EU.

GM maize is engineered to be tolerant to a less toxic herbicide called Liberty and so the trial did little more than compare Atrazine to Liberty and show that, predictably, the latter was less damaging to the environment.

In addition, emerging evidence from US farmers is that after a few crop cycles, treatment with Liberty becomes ineffective and the majority of farmers now apply Liberty ATZ, a combination of Atrazine and Liberty, to their maize.

Nevertheless, if you are one of those sad idealists who believes in biodiversity and don't trust the fantastical claim that GM foods will solve world problems of poverty and hunger "at a stroke", then there is clearly no place for you in the bright, focus-grouped big-conversation 21st Century UK.

If, as you swat away pollinating insects blown fifty miles on the breeze from mainland Europe, you wonder whether the GM "separation zone" of a few hundred metres will be quite enough to protect our organic farms from neighbouring GM contamination then I'm afraid you simply don't understand sophisticated science.

And, if you think you needn't worry because you don't eat maize, I'm sorry to tell you that you probably do - indirectly.

It is being imported from the US and fed to livestock in the UK.

Meat products from livestock raised on GM feed don't have to be labelled as such.

In the case of supermarket own-brand fresh milk, for example, only Marks & Spencer is prepared to certify that its is GM-feed free.

Even Michael Meacher, the minister who originally commissioned the trials and now no longer has a job to lose, has stated the Government "cannot responsibly license GM crops".

But governments tend to listen to whoever best serves their purpose.

They select the questions, the compliant, ambitious on-message experts and the preferred GM suppliers.

"We took," they will say, "the very best scientific advice available."

They forget that scientists don't possess the truth but merely seek it.

Politicians, on the other hand, are rather less concerned about seeking the truth - they try to create it.

*If you have a question for Martina, email features@theargus.co.uk
Martina is a qualified nutritional therapist at the Dolphin House Clinic and Crescent Clinic of Complementary Medicine, Brighton, or visit www.thehealthbank.co.uk