---------------------------------------------------------------
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: Viewpoints on genetically modified food.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
  * Public Grows Weary, Environmentalists Become Conciliatory,
    And Food-Safety Issue Is Perceived As Anti-Trade
 
 
    By David Walker, agricultural economist
    Bridge News
    NORWICH, England--While the genetically modified crops issue has held the 
attention of the British public like a well-scripted soap opera for most of 
1999, its popularity may be on the wane.
 
    It has had a superficially plausible and popular plot, several topical 
sub-themes, colorful characters, almost daily episodes and even cameo 
celebrity appearances. Both Prince Charles and Sir Paul McCartney have 
featured.
 
    Entertaining though it has often been, the controversy has unfortunately 
tended to create more heat than light. The British government is committed to 
a science-based policy on biotechnology, but beholden to an electorate that 
currently seems reluctant to accept scientific opinion.
 
    This has been very fertile ground for the scriptwriters.
 
    Much as the government would have welcomed a haven from this storm, in 
the form of an objective case against this biotechnology, the scientific 
community has yet to find condemning evidence. The activists, however, have 
found enough to produce regular and superficially plausible episodes.
 
    There are two major sub-plots -- the environment and food safety. The 
environment has received greater play.
 
    The half dozen or so environmental groups have been very successful in 
gaining media attention and raising their political profile. So far, they 
have failed to apply enough pressure to force the British government to 
abandon its science-based policy.
 
    Frustration with government resolve lead to some very colorful copy, 
including inflammatory accusations concerning relationships among government, 
the science community and the biotech industry. The use of selected 
scientific evidence often out of context has added to public confusion.
 
    This, together the trashing of research fields and crops, has almost 
certainly undermined the activists' credibility with politicians and 
scientists, but probably not as yet with the general public.
 
    Some of the heat of the debate, however, seems to have dissipated as the 
weather has turned cooler.
 
    In mid-September, the government decided not to contest a ''judicial 
review'' challenge by the Friends of the Earth. At issue was the extension of 
an existing license for field-scale environmental trials. Although the legal 
issue was a technical one, the decision provides the Friends with the 
opportunity to apply for a court injunction to halt existing trials of 
autumn-seeded rapeseed.
 
    It might be seen as creating a dilemma for the Friends. The decision to 
hold environmental trials was made last spring to placate activists' 
concerns. The Friends have been critical of the manner in which the trials 
are being conducted. Yet their motives for delaying the research process 
could be questioned, particularly by the judge whose job it is to grant any 
injunction. The reality is the Friends will almost certainly relish the 
publicity.
 
    While they wait for the opportunity to seek the injunction, they are 
attempting to negotiate a settlement with the government. Monsanto, the major 
commercial developer of the technology, also appears to be negotiating. It 
has held discussions recently with Greenpeace and the Soil Association, a 
British promoter of organic food and an opponent of genetically modified 
crops. Positive though the pause and the discussions are, they are unlikely 
to herald a halt in the hostilities.
 
    The political environment may, however, be getting more difficult for the 
activists, who are generally viewed as being anti-farmer.
 
    The British media, the public and even the government appear to be 
increasingly sympathetic to the plight of farmers, whose income has fallen so 
dramatically this year. It is clearly becoming more difficult for the 
activists to sell the perception that farmers are laying waste the 
countryside in order to reap obscene profits.
 
    In the main, the food-safety issue has been kept rolling by the 
supermarkets. Food retailers have been quick to use it in the battle for 
market share. It is 18 months since the first British supermarket made its 
commitment to GM-free food. But this commitment has yet to be translated into 
the labeling of products as GM-free. This may be because a change in 
regulatory environment is anticipated or the issue is expected to go out of 
style.
 
    Image is seen as being important in this market. It has even lead to one 
chain, Iceland, lodging a complaint with Britain's Advertising Standards 
Authority over the claim by another, Sainsbury's, to have been the first to 
exclude genetically modified content from all its store-brand products. This 
looks more like a stock-market than a grocery-market battle.
 
    The extension of 1998 European Union regulations to Britain this year 
requires all products containing genetically modified material derived from 
maize and soybeans to be so labeled. There are, in fact, very few products 
with such labels yet on supermarket shelves. No doubt the sales performance 
of those that are labeled is being monitored closely.
 
    Consumer interest in the food-safety issue may also be declining. 
Significantly, the current twist in the saga of BSE -- mad cow disease -- is 
being portrayed as a trade rather than a food-health issue. The EU has lifted 
the ban on British beef exports, having decided that UK food-safety measures 
are adequate. The French are refusing to allow imports of British beef, 
claiming evidence that the UK food-safety provisions are still not adequate.
 
    The French evidence has been assumed to be bogus, representing a major 
change in UK media perceptions and sympathies. Given that the BSE crisis has 
been regarded as a major cause for safety concerns over biotechnology, this 
swing is probably meaningful for the eventual acceptance of 
genetic-modification technology.
 
    The opponents of this technology have so far been successful in 
maintaining momentum for their cause. The political environment, however, is 
becoming more challenging for them. Their potential to gain further attention 
by making more strident claims and taking increasingly outrageous action may 
be quite limited -- and threatens their credibility. At the same time, the 
danger for them is that the script will become mundane and the public will 
lose interest.
 
    There is always, of course, the chance that genuine and detrimental 
scientific evidence will come to light which will have a lasting impact on 
the future of this technology.
 
    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. His views are not necessarily those 
ofwhose 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, Bridge News, 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. 
  End
 
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on BridgeStation.
(Story .5400)
 
[SLUG: FOOD-GENETICALLY-MODIFIED:BN _ op-ed]