---------------------------------------------------------------
THE BridgeNews FORUM: Viewpoints on genetically modified foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------
* The Starlink Corn Controversy In America Has Had A Surprisingly
Limited Impact Both In The US And Britain
By David Walker, agricultural economist
BridgeNews
Norwich, England--Those campaigning in Britain against genetically
engineered food could be forgiven for expecting the American Starlink corn
episode to further their cause.
The incident, however, seems to have been of limited value to them.
British activists have not been falling over one another to preach their
gospel that any food containing imported American corn is a health hazard.
Or that this "escape" was proof positive that, once this biotech genie was
out of the bottle, it was uncontrollable.
They have, of course, been successful in keeping the genetically
modified crops issue in the news through a variety of headline catching
stunts such as trashing trial plots and environmental test crops.
They have also until recently been aided and abetted by the major
British supermarket chains, which have used the promotion of GM-free foods
in their fight for market share.
It is always possible that, even after more than 10 years of testing
and five years of commercial production elsewhere in the world, evidence
will be uncovered that will put an end to the debate.
In Britain, nothing of real significance has been unearthed by the
activists during over two years of headline news. The first of three years
of field scale environmental trials have been completed without any
particularly damning scientific evidence coming to light.
But the outcome is more likely to be decided by public perception of
scientific evidence than the actual facts. It will, of course, not be
scientists but politicians, with an eye on public opinion, who will
decide. Here things are less clear cut.
The British biotech industry is now faced with the onset of the silly
season, which will naturally precede the next British general election,
predicted by political pundits for the spring.
To date, the government has stuck by its science-based policy, much to
the frustration of the activists. The fear is that this might be abandoned
in the run up to an election to curry the support of the large percentage
of the population that is at least uneasy about genetic engineering.
On this issue, the U.S. experience with the Starlink incident is
paradoxically reassuring. From a British perspective, it was astonishing
that it never became a major issue in the U.S. presidential and
congressional election campaigns.
This should perhaps not have been a revelation, as environmental
arguments have not featured prominently in the ongoing British fuel taxes
debate.
It is increasingly evident that while there is considerable depth in
individual conviction on the genetic engineering issue by some, its
breadth is not politically significant.
That the British government does not, for the moment, intend to be
stampeded by public opinion was evident by a House of Commons response by
the prime minister, Tony Blair, to a question relating to mad cow disease,
where there is also often a gap between public opinion and science. Blair
called for "informed public debate" on the balance between risk and public
protection across a range of subjects faced by government.
Opponents of this biotechnology have also been inhibited by the
perception they have created about the U.S. regulatory environment--
namely, that the adoption of the technology in North America was only
possible because of minimal testing and regulation.
The Starlink episode has demonstrated the converse--a good
understanding of the potential allergy related food risk associated with
Starlink, the reason why it was only licensed for livestock feed and a
sophisticated and sensitive, though not perfect, regulatory environment.
But more interestingly, the Starlink episode has uncovered a change in
the attitude of British food retailers who in the past have played a major
role in popularizing the issue.
In the past, they have actively used GM-free food promotion in their
battle for market share. This weapon has been much less evident of late.
This may in part be the result of threatening noises from the newly set up
British Food Standards Agency about false GM-free claims by supermarkets
back in April.
This was followed in July by the British Advertising Standards
Authority upholding four out of five complaints regarding the merits of
organic food, including claims over taste, health, environmental and
animal welfare benefits. The implications of this are that, even if
retailers can justify GM-free labels, their promotional value is limited.
The current stance of supermarkets was, however, only tested when the
British cell of Friends of the Earth, copying their American counterparts,
announced they had found illegal genetically modified content in national
and store brand corn chips.
In view of the U.S. experience, when products were immediately
withdrawn from store shelves, it was surprising that the British
supermarket chains were not finessed.
Despite being warned by the Food Standards Agency of the consequences
of selling food products with unlicensed genetically engineered content,
the supermarkets chose not to remove the products. Rather, they challenged
the group to produce the evidence that was supposed to have been produced
by laboratory analysis in Germany.
The group has been slow in responding, but quick to move onto other
issues. The question now may be whether they will be charged with public
mischief. 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.
B |
