-------------------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: A series of viewpoints on farming, 
    farm policy and related agricultural issues. 
    -------------------------------------------------------- 
  
  * Activists' Inability To Kill British Farm Trials 
    Is Latest In A Series Of Failures 
  
  
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    Bridge News 
    NORWICH, England--Greenpeace U.K. announced last week that it had been  
able to persuade only two of 30-odd British farmers to give up environmental  
trials of genetically modified crops being held on their land. 
  
    Although this was hyped as a victory, the numbers suggest the influence  
of Greenpeace is waning. It was, in fact, the fourth time this year that  
action by activists in Britain over the issue of genetically modified crops  
has fizzled out. 
  
    The trials have been organized by the British government as part of an  
agreement last year that included a voluntary three-year moratorium on the  
commercialization of genetically modified crops. While mainstream  
environmental groups seem prepared to await the outcome of these trials, the  
activists have not let up. 
  
    For a multinational organization such as Greenpeace, with annual revenue  
of $100 million, failure to exert greater influence on such a small group of  
farmers who had been publicly identified must have been a disappointment. 
  
    Greenpeace was, however, undoubtedly dealing with farmers whose minds has  
been closed by the recent actions of the activists themselves. 
  
    This challenge was probably recognized in February, when the Friends of  
the Earth attempted to raise farmers' concerns about their exposure to  
possible legal claims by other farmers objecting to potential genetic  
contamination of their nearby conventional crops from wind-borne pollen from  
the genetically modified crops. This assault by the activists may have failed  
because they did not appreciate the level of trust and goodwill that has been  
built up over the years between farmers and the chemical and seed companies  
that deliver new technology. 
  
    A series of farm meetings in early February organized by Greenpeace was a  
more creative and imaginative venture. It featured three U.S. farmers who  
were to varying degrees opposed to genetically modified crops. Greenpeace may  
have thought that if it could show that North American farmers were having  
second thoughts about the technology, British farmers would not even consider  
it. 
  
    Unfortunately for Greenpeace, the opposition of these American farmers  
was secondary to their concerns over the natural status of organic output,  
the role played by multinational corporations in the development of the  
technology, and the market value of genetically modified crops after harvest. 
  
    Equally unproductive for Greenpeace was its boarding of a ship carrying  
genetically modified soy beans off the coast of Wales. This coincided with  
the opening of a conference in Scotland on food safety and genetically  
modified crops sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and  
Development. The vessel, however, headed out to sea, only to return to dock a  
few days later at Liverpool, where Greenpeace was unable to prevent the  
offloading of the cargo. 
  
    While the activists have failed to create anything more than fleeting  
interest from the public, they have managed to keep the issue of genetically  
modified crops alive. This is, of course, important to the financial backing  
of Greenpeace, so they are likely to persist. 
  
    The next appointment on the activist's calendar is the court appearance  
in Norwich next week of 28 members of Greenpeace who are accused of trashing  
a genetically modified maize crop in the area in July. That the justice  
system is taking this seriously was evident at the time of the incident when  
Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace U.K., was initially denied  
bail. 
  
    However, the court has a major challenge if its role is to deter similar  
actions this summer. It would have been easier to persuade a medieval  
Christian knight returning from a crusade that his treatment of Muslims was  
not fitting. 
  
    We can expect that genetically modified crop trials will be popular  
venues for activists all summer. But there are consolations. They are facing  
an uphill challenge in creating further interest in the issue -- and they  
will learn something about the English countryside from their visits. 
  
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm  
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London  
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of  
the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. He also maintains a Web site at  
http://www.openi.co.uk/. His views are not necessarily those of Bridge News, whose  
ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/. 
  
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions 
to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial 
Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also 
call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com. 
  
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service. 
  
 [Begin BridgeLinks] 
  
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on 
BridgeStation. (Story .5400) 
  
[SLUG: GENETIC-MODIFICATION-GREENPEACE:BN _ op-ed] 
 [End BridgeLinks]