--------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy 
    and related agricultural issues. 
    --------------------------------------------- 
  
  * Suspicious British Public Isn't Likely To Believe 
    That Rogue Crops Posed No Danger To Environment 
  
  
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    BridgeNews 
    Norwich, England--The acknowledgment that British farmers have  
unwittingly been planting very small quantities of genetically modified  
oilseed rape for two years is no tragedy because there has been no proven  
case against this biotechnology. 
  
    And even if there were, the specifics of the British situation are such  
that the chance of any adverse consequence in either an environmental or a  
food-safety context is minimal. 
  
    But many British people are suspicious of the technology and view no risk  
worth taking, so the incident has become a major publicity disaster for those  
working for acceptance of the technology. The timing was also unfortunate --  
on the day the British Food Standards Agency made the announcement about the  
oilseed rape crops, public sensitivities were being raised by comments  
against genetic modification from Prince Charles. 
  
    The response of politicians and activists has been diverse, confusing and  
generally reminiscent of the mad-cow disease epidemic 10 years ago. This is  
largely because those who oppose the technology have taken advantage of the  
opportunity to sow the seeds of doubt. 
  
    The oilseed rape, which also was planted in smaller quantities in Sweden,  
France and Germany, was imported from Canada and contained about 1 percent of  
a rogue variety with a genetically modified parent. The intended variety was  
a cross between a male sterile-female line and a male fertile line with a  
restorer gene. This restorer gene is necessary to make the intended variety  
fertile. 
  
    Because the genetically modified male parent did not have the restorer  
gene, the rogue variety is male-sterile. It will not produce pollen and is,  
therefore, of no consequence to the environment. 
  
    The food-safety issue is equally benign. Oilseed rape is consumed as  
vegetable oil, margarine, salad oil and like products, with the residual meal  
being consumed by livestock, very much as soybean products are. Because the  
oil is a refined product, it has next to no protein or genetic material,  
modified or otherwise. The meal is valued for its protein content, which is  
thoroughly digested by livestock. 
  
    The near-hysteria over this ''escape'' of genetically modified organisms  
seems totally out of place. 
  
    Of concern was the level of varietal impurity, reported to be about 1  
percent. But because the seed production involved hybridization, measures to  
prevent varietal impurity of other crops had already been taken. The  
isolation distance, the distance between the crop and other oilseed rape  
crops, was 800 meters, about half a mile, instead of the usual 100 meters  
required for conventional seed production in Canada. 
  
    The danger of out-crossing, the pollination of one variety by another,  
has for many years been recognized in Alberta, where the imported seed was  
produced. It is seen there as a particular challenge to varietal purity for  
both commercial and seed oilseed-rape production. 
  
    The challenge, however, arises not as much from the spread of pollen from  
one field to another as from ''volunteer'' oilseed rape within a crop. A  
single oilseed rape seed plant typically produces in excess of 500 seeds and  
the seed pods are very susceptible to shattering before harvesting. 
  
    Also, the seed is very small and round which makes it difficult to  
contain during and after threshing. Relatively large numbers of seeds,  
therefore, are left on the ground after harvest. Care is necessary to control  
the volunteer plants that germinate from the seeds left on the ground. 
  
    The existence of volunteer oilseed rape in the Canadian seed crop in  
question, if this was the case, should have been picked up during the process  
of field inspection for seed certification. This is notwithstanding the fact  
that out-crossing with volunteer oilseed rape would, in this instance of  
hybrid production, have created sterile seed and not been of any relevance to  
varietal purity. 
  
    It is also worthy of note that the crop was grown in 1998. At that time,  
concern over genetically modified crops in Europe was about the delay in  
regulating their use rather than representing any significant opposition.  
There would have appeared to be little harm in shipping a small percent of  
sterile genetically modified material. 
  
    This does not excuse those responsible, but rather explains the  
occurrence of an event that would be considered a major blunder at a later  
date and halfway around the world. 
  
    Most of this is, of course, difficult to get across in a report in the  
mass media, nor is it the kind of copy that sells itself. Attention has been  
centered on more sensational matters. 
  
    Will this result in the realization that a Britain free of genetic  
modification is an unrealistic objective, or finally nail down the coffin for  
this biotechnology in Europe? Probably neither. 
  
    It has certainly given breath to the tiring campaign against genetic  
modification. A more sober assessment of this technology is probably that it  
is not the devil that many portray it to be. 
  
    The hope is that every time the issue of genetically modified crops hits  
the headlines, a little understanding rubs off and eventually the truth is  
known. At least this was the experience with mad cow disease, an issue that  
is increasingly seen in Britain as a French problem. 
  
    But a big political challenge may yet emerge. The British government has  
so far taken the high ground on the issue, with its science-based policy, and  
robustly defended itself over this recent development. It has, however, not  
been a popular policy. As the Labor Party's lead in opinion polls slips and  
the next election approaches, the temptation to change course will increase.  
 End 
  
    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 BridgeNews, 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, BridgeNews, 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: GENETICALLY-MODIFIED-CROPS:BN _ op-ed] [End BridgeLinks]