---------------------------------------------    
THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy    
and related agricultural issues.   
--------------------------------------------- 

* Anti-Biotech Activists Are Faced With Fading Public Interest And 
  A Clean Environmental Bill Of Health For Genetically Modified Crops 

By David Walker, agricultural economist

     NORWICH, England--While the genetically modified crop war is being
 waged with intensity elsewhere in the world, the front in Britain has been 
relatively quiet in the past few months.

     This is surprising, considering that Britain has just has a general 
election. The greatest challenge for the anti-biotech activists is the 
government's science-based policy and the election seemed an ideal 
ambush opportunity.

     With this policy still intact and the three-year program of farm scale 
trials well into its second year, the activists are faced with fading 
public interest and the prospects of a clean environmental bill of health 
for genetically modified crops.

     The usual range of interest groups (from the football association 
looking for funding for a national stadium, to the London underground 
operatives opposing privatization) were craving attention during the 
election campaign.

     The foot-and-mouth outbreak meant that countryside pursuits, 
including electioneering and eco-terrorism, became politically incorrect 
for a while.

     But as with the American and Canadian elections last year, the 
genetic engineering of crops never developed into much during the 
delayed British election campaign.

     The activists soundly rounded both major parties for their 
environmental policies. The field was therefore open to the Green 
Party, which fielded candidates in about a quarter of the constituencies. 
It did manage to win over 3 percent of the vote in areas where other 
environmental concerns, such as new roads, were the local issue. It seems
that, while biotech issues sell newspapers, they do not buy votes.

     The activists did, however, make a couple of territorial gains, in 
Wales and close to organic production. The Welsh assembly back in May 2000
declared Wales a GM-free zone. This motion appeared to have no legal 
bearing, the Welsh Secretary of Agriculture admitting as much.

     But as it had been requested by a petition with 10,000 names, 
compared to a population of 43,000 full and part-time Welsh farmers, 
it's probably of some political significance.

     The scientific steering committee overseeing the environmental 
trials had emphasized the need for a good geographic spread of trial 
sites, even through the Welsh assembly's opinion was known. The 
activists were able to mobilize sufficient local interest to get three 
trials stopped or moved beyond the borders of the principality.

     The washout in Wales is unfortunate for those farmers wishing to 
use the technology but means little in economic terms. Arable farming 
in Wales is limited. Welsh farmers seed just 1.3 percent of the total 
U.K. cereal acreage.

     The site of a fourth trial at Wolston in central England was just 
over three kilometers from the Henry Doubleday Research Association's 
Ryton Organic Garden.

     The Soil Association which promotes organic agriculture in Britain 
has a policy of not licensing organic production within three kilometers 
of GM crops. It actively champions the non-GM status of organic food.

     Industry guidelines for siting trial have respected this, although 
there seems more promotional than scientific justification for the 
distance policy.

     With the Wolston trial so close to the organic garden, the Soils 
Association had a heaven-sent opportunity for free promotion. It wrote 
to the environment minister threatening to withdraw the organic garden's 
organic status unless the GM crop trial site was moved.

     In turn the minister asked the scientific steering committee to have 
the Wolston trial moved. The committee came to what appears to have been 
a majority decision that there was no scientific basis for moving the 
trial.

     The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a large and well-
financed conservation organization and a member of the committee, then 
took the opportunity to express its credentials by threatening to 
withdraw from the committee.

     Meanwhile, the industry was negotiating with the Soils Association 
on its threat to withdraw the organic garden's organic status. A further 
measurement confirmed that the organic garden was outside the three- 
kilometer zone, but the industry was undoubtedly mindful that the issue 
was being raised within the politically sensitive time frame of a general
election campaign.

     So agreement was reached for moving the trial once, it seems, that 
the Soils Association acknowledged there was no legal or scientific basis 
for its stance.

     Something of precedence appears, however, to have been established. 
It certainly seems enough for even a dull litigation lawyer to go to 
court over.

     This might seem to be a threat to the eventual use of the 
biotechnology in Britain. The reality, however, is that the Soils 
Association's exclusion zone is commercially motivated.

     Vested interests have created the perception that genetically 
modified crops are a health risk and environmental hazard. The challenge 
for the industry is to prove otherwise. In the United Kingdom, this 
process is advancing steadily.

     The next phase will be to demonstrate this specific biotechnology, 
like most others, has health and environmental benefits. As soon as this 
occurs, the Soils Association must surely adopt genetically modified 
crops as an organic option.

     Such a U-turn in a strongly held conviction may seem improbable. 
The reality is, however, that the organic food movement is operating 
in a commercial environment. As soon as its clientele begins to doubt 
the benefits of organic food without the benefits of gentically modified 
crops, demand will evaporate.

     To continue to succeed in this style of niche market, the organic 
movement will need to be nimble. If organic agriculture continues to 
expand, it will almost certainly be with the help of genetic engineering.
GM-free zones around organic production will not be a long-term issue, 
and even the Welsh may be won over.

 
    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.