---------------------------------------------
THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy
and related agricultural issues.
---------------------------------------------
* The Government's Science-Based Policy On Genetically Modified Food
Seems Likely To Eliminate Serious Environmental Objections
By David Walker, agricultural economist
BridgeNews
NORWICH, England--The British general election has for some time been
seen as a make or break event for the future of genetically modified crops
in Britain. The Labour government has held a well-defined science-based
policy since genetically modified crops became an issue about two years
ago.
But with considerable uncertainty and concern among the British
population on this issue, the question has increasingly been whether the
government might abandon the policy to squeeze extra votes during an
election campaign, rather than the science itself.
Although the issue has tended to slip on political agendas, the
activists have been able to generate at least one headline item recently.
This involved the proximity of a genetically modified crop trial to a
research center for organic crops.
The environment minister, Michael Meacher, asked the scientific
steering committee overseeing the trials to have the trial moved. It's
significant that the committee has been slow to accept the request, as it
believes the risks to the organic crops is minimal.
This indicates an increasing confidence in the technology, provides
evidence that the political battle is about to be won and shows the
scientific communities' increased confidence in itself.
A three-year program of farm-scale environmental trails was set up in
1999 to address concerns of environmentalists and others who oppose the
technology.
A series of government reports published in the spring of 1999 found
little if any fault with the technology, but this failed to inspire public
confidence.
Accepting that environmental aspects of genetically modified crops had
not been tested in farm-scale trials in Britain, the government obtained a
voluntary agreement with the industry to undertake a three-year program of
testing before full-scale commercial production. This arrangement had the
added advantage of delaying major decisions during a cooling-off period.
No major challenges appear to have arisen in the first full year of
testing in the British country side. Only minor adjustments for this
year's trials have been made including small increases in separation
distances from conventional commercial crops.
While the trials will run the full three years before commercial
release, a generally clean bill of health at this stage must provide the
scientific community with a degree of confidence over the eventual
outcome.
Although these trials were accepted by mainstream environmental
groups, they were an immediate target for activists seeking to keep the
issue in front of the public.
In addition to creating publicity by targeting the crops themselves,
the activists took aim at the farmers hosting the trials to discourage
participation, so that the trials would have to be abandoned. If the
claims of the activists are to be believed, they came close to succeeding
a year ago.
This spring, however, has been much quieter. In truth, the British
foot-and-mouth outbreak has conspired against the activists.
With the country genuinely supportive of attempts to limit rural
traffic with the risk of spreading the disease, the eco-warriors may have
feared adverse publicity if they actively demonstrated at the trials
sites. The issue of genetically modified crops was also unceremoniously
relegated from the front page news league by the outbreak.
Furthermore, the activists may have had, and still have, specific
plans for the election campaign period recognizing it as a particularly
promising ambush opportunity. That the election was deferred from the date
widely anticipated may have left a hole in the activists' program.
Having lost their momentum, however, the activists have a much greater
challenge ahead of them. With opinion polls suggesting at least a
comfortable victory for Labour, the need to accommodate this popular cause
will not be great even if they can reignite interest.
If the government's science-based policy survives the election, which
now seems most probable, the trials are unlikely to be abandoned before
the results are published. And it seems increasingly likely they will
eliminate serious environmental objections.
The election campaign will certainly be critical for the future of
genetically modified crops. While the foot-and-mouth outbreak may have
added to the activists' challenge of keeping the issue alive, the tide of
interest really began to turn last summer.
Until then the supermarkets had been exploiting, and indeed creating,
public concern in their promotional activity. As early as March 2000 the
British Food Standards Agency was reported to have plans to test retail
products that claimed to be GM-free--in other words, not containing
genetically modified content.
In July a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority on promotion
of organic food was a further caution. While exceptionally the ruling
allowed the claim GM-free status, no specific benefit was attached to the
claim. Other claims, including taste, health, environmental and animal
welfare benefits were found to be without basis.
Implicitly cut off from unsupportable claims against genetically
engineered food, the supermarkets have moved onto the safer ground of
nutrition for their advertising focus.
But the most refreshing element of the decision by the steering
committee was its faith in its science. The issue at stake was that of the
possible cross-contamination through pollen drift of crops at the organic
crops research center. It's the most contentious of all issues raised by
environmentalists.
Since the height of the mad-cow disease epidemic five and 10 years
ago, the stock of the scientific community has been low. The first step in
the reestablishment of confidence in scientific evidence has to be a show
of confidence of scientists in their information.
It was a considerable act of courage and confidence for a committee of
scientists, independent as they might be on paper, not to yield their
ground to a minister of the crown during a general election on such a
politically sensitive issue. 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.
|
