---------------------------------------------
THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy
and related agricultural issues.
---------------------------------------------
* To Protect Biotech Industry, Vandals Who Destroy
Tests Of Genetically Modified Crops Must Be Deterred
By David Walker, agricultural economist
BridgeNews
Norwich, England--The flavor of the month for Britain's eco-warriors is
genetically modified crops.
With universities and colleges on vacation and the weather fine, the
activists' seasonal migration from the cities to the countryside was
expected. But the routine arrest of the activists for vandalizing fields of
genetically modified crops was not.
The outcome of this battle in Britain will almost certainly have a
bearing on the use of the technology elsewhere and on trade in genetically
modified commodities for countries where they are already grown. A victory by
the eco-warriors would encourage them to open hostilities to biotechnology on
a wider front.
The activists' first attempts to destroy genetically modified crops in
Britain took place last year. In one incident, 28 members of Greenpeace were
charge with theft and criminal damage. At their trial in April, they were
cleared of theft, but the criminal damage charge resulted in a hung jury. At
the state's request, a retrial has been scheduled for September.
Greenpeace appears not to have been involved in the activists' latest
demonstrations, possibly because its case is still in the courts.
It is legal for British farmers to grow genetically modified crop
varieties that have been approved by the European Union. But a voluntary
agreement between the British government and the biotech industry effectively
limits this to environmental tests of genetically modified crops on open
fields, located on privately owned farmland.
This arrangement was agreed to last year in the expectation that both the
research findings and a better understanding of the issue eventually would
lead to greater acceptance of the technology by the British public. But there
remains widespread opposition to genetic modification in Britain, which makes
the British government's pledge to take a science-based approach to the
technology a sensitive issue.
Mainstream environmental groups have largely accepted the arrangement
between government and industry, but more extreme groups have attempted to
disrupt the process at every turn, keeping the issue in the public eye. Their
tactics include pressuring farmers not to participate in the trials.
The British trials of genetically modified crops are easy targets for
vandalism by activists. The locations of test sites have been announced and
their detailed map coordinates provided. Short of 24-hour surveillance and
the erection of miles of perimeter fences around the fields, it is impossible
to limit access.
But these fields are not ideal targets. Few people pass the fields and
so, in contrast with urban graffiti, damage to the crops draws little
publicity. Even fairly substantial damage to a field trial is not too
disruptive to research efforts.
Probably to overcome these drawbacks, activists have been very open about
their vandalism and exposed themselves to prosecution. They are being
arrested, charged and released on bail pending trial.
The diligence of police has undoubtedly been a surprise to the activists.
They may have expected more sympathy from the authorities, given that most of
the British public is concerned about the growing of genetically modified
crops.
Rural law enforcement is also a factor in the crackdown on activists.
There is an ever-widening polarization of urban and rural interests in
Britain. In this high-profile situation, the government has had no choice but
to bring the full force of the law to bear on the vandals, to protect farm
interests.
It is critical for the future of genetically modified crops in Britain
that prosecution of the activists is successful. If they are able to continue
to vandalize the crop trials with impunity, they may indeed be able to do
enough damage to make the trials meaningless. But, more critically, farmers
are unlikely to volunteer to host future trials.
It is reasonable to assume Greenpeace used its best defense at the trial
in April -- ''lawful excuse'' of a crime that was committed to prevent a
worse crime from occurring -- and its most persuasive evidence. Yet, despite
these efforts over almost three weeks of trial, the state prosecution service
requested a retrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict-- an indication
that it expects to win next time.
At the trial in April, the jury was instructed on several occasions to
put aside the issue of genetic engineering. It seems not all of its members
were able to do this. For the prosecution, the challenge of the retrial will
not be to make the case, but to select a jury that will listen to it. 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-ACTIVISTS-UK:BN _ op-ed]
[End BridgeLinks]
|
