Altered -Food Debate Cools Down In Britain
While the genetically modified crops issue has held the attention
of the British public like a well-scripted soap opera for most of 1999,
its popularity may be on the wane. It has had a superficially plausible
and popular plot, several topical sub-themes, colorful characters,
almost daily episodes and even cameo celebrity appearances. Both Prince
Charles and Sir Paul McCartney have featured.
Entertaining though it has often been, the controversy has
unfortunately tended to create more heat than light. The British
government is committed to a science-based policy on biotechnology, but
beholden to an electorate that currently seems reluctant to accept
scientific opinion. This has been very fertile ground for the script
writers.
Much as the government would have welcomed a haven from this storm in
the form of an objective case against this biotechnology, the scientific
community has yet to find condemning evidence. The activists, however,
have found enough material to produce regular episodes. There are two
major sub-plots: the environment and food safety. The environment has
received greater play.
The half-dozen or so environmental groups have been very successful
in gaining media attention and raising their political profile. So far,
they have failed to apply enough pressure to force the British
government to abandon its science-based policy.
Frustration led to some colorful copy, including inflammatory
accusations concerning relationships among government, the science
community and the biotech industry. The use of selected scientific
evidence, often out of context, has added to public confusion.
This, together with the trashing of research fields and crops, has
almost certainly undermined the activists' credibility with politicians
and scientists, though probably not as yet with the general public. Some
of the heat of the debate, however, seems to have dissipated as the
weather has turned cooler.
In mid-September, the government decided not to contest a "judicial
review" challenge by Friends of the Earth. At issue was the extension of
an existing license for field-scale environmental trials. Although the
legal issue was a technical one, the decision provides the group with
the opportunity to apply for a court injunction to halt existing trials
of autumn-seeded rapeseed.While it waits, the group is attempting to
negotiate a settlement with the government. Monsanto, the major
commercial developer of the technology, also appears to be negotiating.
It has held discussions recently with Greenpeace and the Soil
Association, a British promoter of organic food and an opponent of
genetically modified crops. Positive though the pause and the
discussions are, they are unlikely to herald a halt in the hostilities.
The political environment may, however, be getting more difficult for
the activists, who are generally viewed as being anti-farmer. The
British media, the public and even the government appear to be
increasingly sympathetic to the plight of farmers, whose income has
fallen so dramatically this year. It is clearly becoming more difficult
for the activists to sell the perception that farmers are laying waste
the countryside in order to reap obscene profit. In the main, the
food-safety issue has been kept rolling by the supermarkets. Food
retailers have been quick to use it in the battle for market share. It
is 18 months since the first British supermarket made its commitment to
food that is free of genetically modified ingredients. But this
commitment has yet to be translated into the labeling of products as
GM-free. This may be because a change in regulatory environment is
anticipated or the issue is expected to go out of style.
Image is seen as being important in this market. It has even lead to
one chain, Iceland, lodging a complaint with Britain's Advertising
Standards Authority over the claim by another, Sainsbury's, to have been
the first to exclude genetically modified content from all its
store-brand products. This looks more like a stock-market than a
grocery-market battle.
The extension of 1998 Europe an Union regulations to Britain this
year requires all products containing genetically modified material
derived from corn and soybeans to be so labeled. There are, in fact,
very few products with such labels yet on supermarket shelves. No doubt
the sales performance of those that are labeled is being monitored
closely. Consumer interest in the food-safety issue may also be
declining. Significantly, the current twist in the saga of BSE -
so-called mad cow disease - is being portrayed as a trade rather than a
food-health issue.
The EU has lifted the ban on British beef exports, having decided
that British food-safety measures are adequate. The French are refusing
to allow imports of British beef, claiming evidence that the British
food-safety provisions are still not adequate.
The French evidence has been assumed to be bogus, representing a
major change in British media perceptions and sympathies. Given that the
BSE crisis has been regarded as a major cause for safety concerns over
biotechnology, this swing is probably meaningful for the eventual
acceptance of genetic-modification technology.
The opponents of this technology have so far been successful in
maintaining momentum for their cause. The political environment,
however, is becoming more challenging for them.
Their potential to gain further attention, by making more strident
claims and taking increasingly outrageous action, may be quite limited -
and threatens their credibility. At the same time, the danger for them
is that the script will become mundane and the public will lose
interest. There is always, of course, the chance that genuine and
detrimental scientific evidence will come to light which will have a
lasting impact on the future of this technology.
David Walker, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm
outside Norwich, England. He served as senior economist in London for
the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and was executive director of the
Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. This article was distributed by
Bridge News.
Copyright 1999 The
Journal of Commerce All Rights
Reserved
