Images drive biotechnology issue
BY DAVID WALKER
While the history of trans-Atlantic differences of opinion on agriculture trade
issues is long and intense, in the past the fallout has tended to be restricted to the farm
sector.
The current issue of genetically modified crops has the potential to have a more
far-reaching impact, as widely and strongly held European consumer food-safety perceptions
are increasingly driving political agendas.
Speaking at the International Policy Council's first Agro-Forum at The Hague in October
1997, Bernard P. Auxenfans, president of Monsanto's operations for Europe/Africa,
expressed concern over the widening gap between the adoption of biotechnology in North
America, and indeed Latin America and Southeast Asia, and Europe.
Mr. Auxenfans attributed this to the BSE crisis -- the so-called "mad-cow disease" crisis
-- which had developed into front-page news six months earlier and sensitized the public to
food-safety issues at the very time gene-modified crops were being introduced to Europe.
He also cited the failure of European political leadership to develop the clear regulatory
framework for the introduction of biotechnology essential for its acceptance by consumers.
This was a very natural concern for Mr. Auxenfans because Monsanto is a leader in the
development of genetically modified crops.
Mr. Auxenfans warned that Europe could not isolate itself from genetically improved food
without paying a very heavy price. He expressed confidence, however, that the hurdles of
acceptance would be overcome at some point, even if the cost would be substantial.
That was almost 18 months ago, when the public was barely aware of genetic engineering,
and special-interest groups were frustrated by the lack of interest by the media.
In terms of the development and adoption of the technology, little has occurred in Europe
since then. Wide opposition to gene-modified crops has emerged, however, based on a
diverse range of food-safety, conservation and environmental issues.
This contrasts starkly with North America, where gene-modified crops were first grown on
a commercial scale in 1996 and the adoption of the first phase of the technology is about
complete.
More interestingly, from a food-safety and European perspective, mandatory labeling of
food with gene-modified content is not yet of enough concern to be justified. While
attempts are being made in the United States to put the cat back into the bag, this activity
is limited to fringe groups.
While the science of the issue on both sides of the Atlantic may be the same, public
perceptions are very different. And, in a political context, perceptions are reality.
This has created a vexing challenge for European politicians elected to represent the best
interests of their constituents.
This is particularly so for the British government, which has put food safety and the
environment above more traditional agricultural priorities.
It has to date, however, taken the high ground and accepted the advice of the mainstream
scientific community in general and the long-established Advisory Committee on Novel
Foods in particular. A Food Standards Agency is also being established with a clear focus
on protecting public health.
The government has to date rejected popular calls for a moratorium on the introduction of
modified crops.
The opposition, however, accepts the need for the moratorium on conservation and
environmental grounds, to allow time for research. It appears willing to accept the science
of the issue, but says that what may be acceptable in the open spaces of North America is
not necessarily so in the British countryside.
The paradox here is that the major benefit of currently available gene-modifying technology
is the reduced use of pesticides which, prior to the emergence of the gene-modified issue,
were the major concern of conservationists and environmentalists.
Britain, of course, is not an island in the context of policy, but is part of the European
Union, whose member states may be less willing to accept this technology.
Political decision-making will be at best deferred and at worst not swayed by science. The
result will surely be a further widening in the technology gap.
This of itself should not be a concern. A sovereign society clearly has the right to forego
potential economic gain in exchange for greater food and environmental safety, or any other
perceived benefit.
The diverging trends in the uptake of gene technology could, however, create challenges
where sovereign rights have been subordinated by international trade agreements.
A current example of just such a challenge is the EU's 10-year-old ban on imports of U.S.
beef produced with growth hormones.
Even though it is viewed as a food-safety issue within Europe -- while there is judged to
be no scientific basis for the concern -- the ban is illegal under the terms of the EU's
international trade commitments.
Even so, the EU agricultural commissioner has indicated that he has no intention of lifting
the ban.
This suggests that the EU may ultimately not be swayed by scientific evidence, even though
this is the basis for its international commitments.
In the upcoming round of trade negotiations, these issues could be handled by specific
exclusion, but this would be a slippery path to follow.
Over the last 18 months, not only has the gene-modified crops issue displaced BSE in
headline news, but the potential costs of the issue have risen substantially, costs that will
not be born by Monsanto and farmers but society as a whole.
David Walker, an independent agricultural economist, has spent much of his career in
Alberta, Canada, advising farmers on grain marketing and later the provincial government
on farm market policy. In 1997, he returned to his native England to assist the U.K.
Home-Grown Cereals Authority with its market information program. He also farms with
his brother in the Broadland area of Norfolk. This article was distributed by Bridge News.
