---------------------------------------------
THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy
and related agricultural issues.
---------------------------------------------
* It Would Be Significant If Eco-Activists Lost Their Touch On
The Eve Of Their Season Of Greatest Opportunity--The General Election
By David Walker, agricultural economist
BridgeNews
NORWICH, England--Fall-seeded rapeseed in Britain, including
genetically modified crops that are part of farm-scale environmental
trials, have flowered without attracting the attention of eco-warriors.
Generally demonstrations by protesters are either failing to attract
press and media coverage or are very limited in number and scope. Why have
the anti-biotech activists been so quiet in Britain in recent months?
Given that the imminent general election campaign period will be
pivotal for the political future of genetically modified crops, there are
more than a few farmers holding their breath.
At this time last year, the trial of the "Greenpeace 28" accused of
theft and criminal damage of a genetically modified maize crop held the
attention of the national media, so the winter rapeseed crop was not
required as a target.
But over the winter months and so far this spring, the activists have
provided very thin pickings for the media in Britain, if not elsewhere.
Perhaps as a result, supermarket support for the cause also seems to
be fading. While some chains are promoting meat and meat products produced
with GM-free feed, generally the promotion of naturally produced food
appears to have yielded center stage to healthy food.
Furthermore, the new British Food Standards Agency, which has had a
very active first year with many other food issues, has to the chagrin of
anti-biotech activists failed to find any fault with the technology.
Believing the escape of pollen from flowering crops puts the British
country side at risk to genetic pollution, the eco-warriors tend to strike
just before a crop flowers. As winter-seeded rapeseed flowers in April, it
is a natural first target.
As the anti-biotech activists have in the past been particularly
successful in Britain in igniting and fuelling interest in their cause, it
would be significant if they lost their touch on the eve of their season
of greatest opportunity--the general election campaign.
If they are able to sustain an effective publicity campaign during the
election, it is just possible that they will be able to shake the
government from its science-based policy, as the British public are still
uncertain about the technology.
There are several possible explanations for the apparent inaction by
the activists. They may regard the weather as too inclement for
demonstrations in the great outdoors or they may not have been aware that
winter rapeseed flowers this early.
More likely, however, activists may figure that with the press and
media focused on the foot and mouth outbreak, they would not attract
sufficient attention to warrant action. Indeed, such traffic in the
countryside might have even attracted adverse publicity with the potential
for spreading the disease.
Demonstrations can, of course, be deferred until spring-seeded
rapeseed flowers or maize tassels later in the year, by which time the
weather will have improved, the foot-and-mouth outbreak will have died
away and the press will be looking for copy.
The challenge for the activists, however, is that like even the most
successful brands of soap powder, their cause may be soon forgotten if not
actively promoted.
As in the past the cause has had a particular challenge in recruiting front
line warriors and preparation for the summer season must surely be under
way, lack of publicity at this time, the election aside, must be a
concern for them.
Students, who might other wise be willing to devote their summer to
the cause, may instead be tempted to accept parental invitations for a
family holiday in Tuscany or whichever summer destination is in vogue.
Another possible explanation is that it's something of a planned
break: The activists may have a program scheduled to coincide with the
general election. As the election was deferred because of concerns over
spreading foot and mouth, so their activities may have been put on hold.
We may indeed be experiencing the quiet before the storm.
But if the storm passes without serious damage, weather concerns will
fade. With the declining interest of supermarkets and increasing evidence
the environment is not at serious risk due to genetically modified crops,
demonstrations are likely to be viewed with increasing disdain by the
public.
The reality is there are a host of other issues higher on the
political agenda than genetically modified crops. If the polls are any
indication, the government will not be looking for issues to squeeze extra
votes from the electorate at the eleventh hour.
The anti-biotech lobby now has a particularly hard row to hoe. If it
fails to make gains with what has been a popular cause during the
election, it is likely to have a long wait for its next opportunity.
It seems increasingly likely that by then genetically modified crops
will have received a clean bill of environmental health, which will
further add to the challenge of the anti-biotech lobby. 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.
|
