The trial of 28 Greenpeace members who trashed a genetically modified maize crop last July ground to an inconclusive hung jury conclusion at the Norwich Crown Court last week. The evidence presented may, however, have a wider impact outside than inside the court room.

A voluntary agreement between the government and industry currently limits GM crop production in Britain to field-scale environmental trials. The crop that Greenpeace visited at Lyng, Norfolk, last July was one of the earliest of these trials.

The Greenpeace members were charged with criminal damage and theft. Their defense was "lawful excuse." They admitted to cutting down part of the crop. They claimed, however, that, they were fearful of environmental damage from the spread of pollen. It was their plan, having cut the crop down before it flowered, to return it to the seed company who owned it.

Thus, they were preventing genetic pollution.

While this might sound a little hollow, it gave Greenpeace another public platform to expound its views. The first day or so the trail, which lasted three weeks, received the anticipated publicity, but it was soon difficult to find much reported in the newspapers And the eventual verdict was upstaged by a high profile murder trial in the same court house.

The verdict of the jury is likely to have very little impact on the course of the larger debate. But the evidence obtained may.

This is almost certainly because it is more difficult who avoid answering awkward questions in court than in front of a microphone or camera.

By way of example, Greenpeace claims that local residents were very much opposed to this trial, with reports of a well attended local meeting at Lyng was presented as evidence of this. The challenge for Greenpeace was that it emerged that no local residents actually participated in the demonstration, with all but three of the 28 charged coming from London or further afield.

This court trial revelation may have prompted a farmer hosting a field trial this year to agree voluntarily to accept the results of a plebisite on the issue being held in conjunction with local government elections on May 4. A convincing win at this ballot by either side could materially effect the GM crop trial program, if not the future of the application of genetic engineering to British agriculture.

If the ballot is won by the activists other farmers may follow suit and drop out of the field trials. If it is lost, it will be further evidence that the activists have greater public relations competence than public sympathy.

The most interesting piece of evidence at the Norwich trial, however, was provided by Malcolm Walker, chairman of the Iceland supermarket chain and a long time Greenpeace supporter. Iceland claims to be the leader of the pack in providing GM-free food, a marketing strategy adopted by almost all British supermarket chains, which has been particularly damaging to the biotechnology cause.

Mr. Walker shot himself in the foot, almost, when he claimed that it was "almost impossible" to guarantee food products free of GM content. As this claim was made under oath, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Walker believed it. And, because of his position with Iceland, one would presume him to be knowledgeable on the matter, if not on the environment, the subject of the trial.

This could simply pass as an inadvertent comment, if the new British Food Standards Agency had not expressed interested in the GM-free product claims of the supermarkets on its first day in business earlier in the month. New labelling regulations are being introduced and there has been a report of plans to test retail food products claiming to be GM-free. The supermarkets were uncharacteristically silent on this news.

Having raised public awareness and concern over the issue, it will be interesting to see how Iceland and the others will stick handle their way around it. It is within the bounds of possibly that at least some they will quietly and gracefully drop GM-free as a marketing strategy. The alternative seems to be for the retailers to get into the tricky job of convincing their customers that they need not be concerned about low level risks.

As to the trial itself, in retrospect Greenpeace would probably have been well advised to plead guilty and not be distracted from its program of summer demonstrations. As it is they are faced with a possible retrial. The government prosecution service has until May 3 to decide whether to request a retrial.

Obtaining a jury verdict based on evidence presented in the court room alone is clearly a challenge while genetic engineering is viewed with suspicion by most British people. A retrial, however, has the attraction of keeping at least 28 activists on the sidelines this summer.

April 28, 2000