For a couple of hours this afternoon, a few dozen Greenpeace types, assorted yogic flyers from the Natural Law Party, a handful of pensioners, and perhaps the odd scientist or farmer are going to sit down and talk about GM food. The gathering, in Harrogate, is the last in a series that makes up GM Nation?, the Government’s public debate about whether Britain should grow transgenic crops.

You may not have noticed, but the consultation has been running for a couple of weeks. According to ministers, it’s an unprecedented chance for the man in the street to influence their decisions. Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, says it’s designed to “ensure all voices are heard”.

The exercise has been farce from start to finish. And I’m not sure I want the man in the street to set Britain’s science, technology and agriculture policy. One of the six meetings — held midweek at major population centres, such as Taunton and Harrogate — spent much of its time discussing whether the Sars virus might come from GM cotton in China. It’s more likely to have come from outer space. I can think of more useful ways to waste time and money.

Then there’s the fact that the meetings will tell us nothing we don’t know already. The lack of advertising and helpful scheduling mean that every one has been stuffed with green campaigners and New Age zealots who think GM crops are the root of all evil. They were the only ones who were organised enough — or who cared enough — to attend.

The best-attended meeting, in Swansea, attracted a whopping 180 people, most of them already parti pris. The Government will be lucky if even a hundred lay people with a genuine curiosity, rather than crop-tramplers with a Luddite agenda, have joined in the fun. I could have told Mrs Beckett that Greenpeace activists don’t care for GM food. You don’t have to spend £500,000 and lay on tea and biscuits: five minutes on their website is more than enough.

Worst of all, the debate is seeking an answer to an asinine question. Asking people whether they’re for or against GM crops is as ridiculous as asking whether they’re for or against fire. As Prometheus found out, a mastery of flame can be a boon or a curse. It is the tool of the arsonist and Gordon Ramsay. The technology is morally neutral. It is how it is applied that counts.

So it is with GM crops. There is nothing good or bad about them per se: some applications promise great benefits, to consumers, to farmers and to the environment. Others will probably be damaging. Just because a herbicide-tolerant sugar beet might be good — or bad — for Britain does not mean that maize that makes its own pesticide will be the same.

The Government is making a nonsense of science and insulting the public’s intelligence by polarising the argument, seeking simple and sweeping answers where none exists. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics — an independent group with genuine expertise — put it this week: “The possible costs, benefits and risks associated with particular GM crops can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

There is one small mercy — even if it begs further questions about why this pointless consultation was ever started. Whatever the outcome of GM Nation?, the GM issue is going to be resolved elsewhere. European law, and World Trade Organisation rules mean that Britain will not be allowed to block GM crops without sound scientific evidence of potential harm to human health or the environment.

The real decision will be made in Brussels, not Westminster. Now there’s a subject for public debate.

The author is Science Correspondent of The Times

Join the Debate on this article at comment@thetimes.co.uk