--------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy 
    and related agricultural issues. 
    --------------------------------------------- 
  
  * Prospects Dim For Use Of Genetically Modified Seed, 
    As The Blair Government Prepares For An Election 
  
  
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    BridgeNews 
    Norwich, England--Prospects for growing genetically modified crops in  
Britain are looking decidedly shaky, following the announcement that the  
British government has set up an Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology  
Commission. 
  
    Subtle shifts in the government's attitude toward the issue have occurred  
in the year since the commission was promised, suggesting a weakening of its  
''science-based'' policy. The debate on genetically modified crops also has  
reached the highest level of British society, the royal family, where Prince  
Charles and Prince Philip have publicly expressed differing views. 
  
    Under the government's science-based policy, planting of genetically  
modified crops has been limited to field-scale environmental trials conducted  
under a voluntary agreement with industry. This includes a three-year  
moratorium on commercial production. 
  
    While mainstream environmental groups seem prepared to await the outcome  
of these trials, the activists have not been. Yet even the activists'  
opposition has appeared until recently to be on the wane, the result of media  
fatigue at their increasingly strident publicity stunts. 
  
    But the fortunes of the activists improved dramatically in May, following  
the revelation that oilseed rape seed imported from Canada and used in  
Britain this year and last contained a very small proportion of rogue seed  
with genetically engineered parentage. 
  
    The British government's acknowledgement of the rogue seed emphasized  
that, putting aside the absence of scientific evidence against genetically  
modified crops, there was no threat to the environment or food safety from  
the seed. Pollen produced by the rogue variety -- the main concern of the  
activists -- is sterile, and genetically modified material from the crop will  
not enter the human food chain directly. 
  
    The activists either did not understand this, did not believe it, or  
chose to ignore it, and called for the 11,000 acres seeded by 600 British  
farmers to be plowed under. 
  
    But the government would not have been justified in ordering the  
destruction of the crops -- or in offering compensation to the farmers, or in  
claiming compensation from the seed manufacturer. In planting the seed, no  
one had done anything illegal, and there has been no evidence of a threat to  
the environment or a food safety issue. All the government could do was to  
advise farmers to plow up their crops, with the inference that the harvest  
would not be marketable. 
  
    Eventually the seed company responsible, Advanta, agreed to pay  
compensation, almost certainly to put the issue to bed. It faded from the  
headlines very promptly. 
  
    It is tempting to link this incident with the more significant news that  
followed -- the establishment of the Agriculture and Environment  
Biotechnology Commission. It was promised more than a year ago, to fill the  
gaps between the half-dozen or so other government bodies that have a say on  
genetic engineering issues in Britain. 
  
    But the new commission's science-based role seems to have changed since  
it was proposed. Its emphasis is now described as being ''able to explore the  
issues that matter to people most'' and looking at ''acceptability issues  
surrounding [genetic modification] technology.'' Another part of the  
commission's mandate now is ''to advise government on the ethical and social  
implications arising from these developments and their public acceptability.'' 
  
   If this is part of the government's science-based policy, it must now  
include some rather soft science, and may be increasingly a rather soft  
policy. 
  
    Indeed, the existing science-based policy is known to be an unpopular one  
with the British electorate, and the government's popularity is slipping as  
it approaches a general election. 
  
    The danger for the commercialization of the technology is that the  
Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission has been engineered to provide the  
government with the pretext, if politically expedient, for a change in policy. 
  
    And that is the bad news. If there is good news, it is that the royal  
family has provided the activists with a hard act to follow in their quest  
for publicity. 
  
    Prince Charles, who farms 1,100 acres at his Highgrove estate, has long  
been known to oppose genetic engineering technology. Last week, however,  
Prince Philip, this year's president of the Royal Agricultural Society of  
England, came out in favor of the technology, thereby suggesting his boy was  
full of organic fertilizer, the exclusive use of which he also advocates.  
Princess Anne, president of the British Association for the Advancement of  
Science, joined the debate, rejecting condemnation of genetically modified  
food. Then, possibly attempting to rein a trail between her father and  
brother, she had to resort to correcting the press on their interpretation of  
her opinion. 
  
    Her Britannic Majesty must as always be assumed to be in full accord with  
the policies of her Britannic government, whatever they may be.   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 
www.openi.co.uk. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews, whose 
ventures include the Internet site 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-FOOD-POLITICS-UK:BN _ op-ed] 
[End BridgeLinks]