[Note: This opinion was written just prior to the announcement that canola/rapeseed seed imported in to the UK from Canada contained a low GM content. It is posted to provide background to events up to this most recent development which will probably overshadow them.]

The highlight of the activist's calendar in the last month or so was undoubtedly the trial of 28 Greenpeace members for partially trashing a genetically modified maize crop last July. The crop was one of a series being grown under a voluntary agreement between the British government and industry currently limiting GM crop production in Britain to field-scale environmental trials.

They were charged with criminal damage and theft. They admitted to cutting down part of the crop. They claimed "lawful excuse," in the context of their fear of environmental damage from the spread of pollen. Having cut the crop down before it flowered, they planned to return the debris to the seed company who owned it.

After almost three weeks of evidence, the jury found them not guilty of theft, but was hung on the issue of criminal damage. The Crown Prosecution Service has subsequently requested a retrial.

This was probably the worst of results for Greenpeace as it limits the activity of the accused for the summer.

More damaging for the activists cause, however, was evidence that arose from the trial.

The Greenpeace claimed substantial support for their actions from people living in the vicinity of the trial. It emerged, however, that none of the 28 lived near the trial with all but three coming from the London area or beyond.

It would seem that Greenpeace had troubles recruiting storm troopers last summer. And the relatively low level of local concern over these trials has more recently been confirmed by a plebiscite held in conjunction with local election in the immediate vicinity of one of this year's trials.

While 74 percent of voted no to the question "Should GM crops be grown in the parish of St. Osyth?" only 25 percent bothered to vote. This was a very poor turnout - low even by British local election standards, and must have be particulary disappointing to the activists in view of the national publicity which the plebiscite had received.

A spokesman for the Friends of the Earth, however, described it as a "tremendous victory," This hyperbole highlights the hurdle that the activists are having in maintaining the momentum of their anti GM campaign.

It is becoming evident that the activists have a challenge ahead of them, if they are to mount significant and credible demonstrations against GM crops this summer. Busing professional demonstrators around the country is likely to further marginalize their cause.

Cracks are also beginning to appear in the implicit alliance between many of the supermarket chains and the anti-GM lobby. The super markets have been using "GM-free" to promote store brand products for the last year or so.

Giving evidence at the trial of Greenpeace 28, Malcolm Walker, a long time supporter of Greenpeace and chairman of Iceland supermarkets - the self proclaimed leader of the GM-free retailers, told the court it was "almost impossible" for food to be guaranteed free of GM ingredients.

More recently Iceland has been condemned by the British Advertising Standards Authority for cashing in on public concerns over genetically modified foods. It ruled Iceland's anti-GM food promotional campaign was "alarmist" and contained "misleading" and "unsubstantiated" claims.

The new British Food Standards Agency is also taking an interest in the issue. It has announced plans to enhance labelling standards which currently only meet European Union requirements. Conversely, the agency is reported to have plans to expose retailers making bogus claims that own-label foods are free from genetically-modified ingredients. In practical terms it is impossible to find any grocery products labeled as containing GM ingredients.

The level of risk for supermarkets chains riding the band wagon of GM-free promotion has clearly been raised. It is most likely that they will quietly drop the GM issue.

All this is not to suggest the GM issue is dead, but rather that it is tiring. Greenpeace's ranks will undoubtedly be swelled by students once university exams are over. Another jury and the press will be subject to a repeat of the evidence for and against the Greenpeace 28.

It is even possible that condemning scientific evidence against GM crops on food safety or environmental grounds will be unearthed.

May 18, 2000