The Friends has recently drawn attention to the absence of National Farmers Union Mutual, which has the lion's share of British farm business insurance, coverage for this kind of liability. They are also supporting a private members bill in front of the British parliament, titled "The Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability Bill."

Supporters of genetically modified crops would with good reason claim that the developers and marketers of this technology have tested it extensively. None of the companies involved is likely to put its future on the line on such a high profile issue without the confidence of such testing.

And, for those that do not recognize business reality there is the assurance provided by substantial and recently enhanced regulatory processes designed to provide all the guarantees that anybody could reasonably expect. This includes the field scale trials currently in progress.

For the average farmer, however, it's the name on the container that counts. Farmers are well experienced in adopting technology. And that experience is that, if the outcome is not as anticipated, the company that sold the product is the first to want to know why.

The farmer may stand to lose output from the land or animal implicated, but the company stands to lose its reputation. And, where the technology has been applied as directed, the experience is that the provision of compensation is not an issue.

What may be different about genetically modified crops is the suggestion that third parties may be adversely effected. Unsubstantiated claims have been made that for these crops, conventional isolation distances which have been used successfully in the context of maintaining varietal purity in seed production for decades, are inadequate.

And further, that, if genetic contamination does occur, it will some how detract from the value of the land on which it occurs.

In the unlikely event of an authentic claim the company supplying the seed would have no reason, and would be unlikely, to differentiate between second and third party farmers. Their reputation as reliable suppliers would be at stake for both.

The challenge is that, just as there have been some wild claims over the distance that viable pollen can travel and hence genetic contamination can occur, there may be some wild claims for compensation. And even the most outlandish claim would not want for support from publicity seekers.

It is, therefore, not beyond the realm of possibility that a farmer might find himself implicated in such a legal dispute between a not-too-close a neighbour and his supplier of genetically modified seed. There is little doubt that his sympathies would silently lie with the latter. But it is something that a farmer would think twice about and attempt to avoid.

The Friends is, also, attempting to gain credibility for this liability through the legislative process.

It is supporting "The Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability Bill" which was introduced to the House of Common by a government backbencher in mid February. As a private member's bill it is unlikely to see the light of day, particularly as it is implicitly critical of government policy.

Its title will be about as much as is likely to see the light of day. It will, however, have served its purpose in terms of providing publicity on the issue.

The reality is that further regulation is almost certainly counter-productive. If politicians start to treat genetically modified organisms as though they were atomic waste there is a danger that they will begin to be regarded as such.

The issue of farmer liability is one that is accommodated in the normal course of commerce.

The Friends of the Earth has either displayed naivety in terms of its understanding of relationships between farmers and their suppliers of technology. This is understandable as farmers and activists regard the major suppliers of technology in a totally different light.

Or, the Friends are dumb like a fox and see an opportunity to create potential dissidence between farmers.

Or, they are beginning to get desperate for publicity appreciating that they are beginning to lose the science based argument. Notably, the more moderate opponents of genetically modified crops now appear to be distancing themselves from the activists.

Or, two or more of the above.

February 24, 2000