open i

The eventual commercialization of genetically modified crops in Britain would be best served by delay in the approval of legislation proposed by the European Union commission until after upcoming French and German elections. (860 words).

The eventual and general British acceptance of genetically modified crops seems increasingly probable. This assumes that the farm-scale environmental trials in the second of their third year do not unexpectedly turn up scientifically justified concerns.

The British public seems increasingly comfortable with the technology and the green light in an environmental context is likely to leave anti biotech activists virtually isolated in opposition.

It is tempting to conclude that the consistency with which scare stories generated by activists have been repudiated will result in opinion turning firmly against them effectively eliminating all significant opposition and an end to the debate. This, however, is overly simplistic as acceptance by the EU is a further hurdle to be crossed before full commercialization.

Past experience with this type of challenge includes the European Union's ban on the use of growth hormones in beef production in the 1980's. This technology was used widely in Britain at the time.

But is 1987, following media coverage of a very high adventitious level of one of these hormones in a batch of Italian baby food, a combination of farm and consumer interests were able to lobby successfully for a ban on the use of beef growth hormones in Europe and on imports of beef produced with them. They had been used in North America since the 1950's and even European research at the time had failed to identify any material food safety concerns.

To this day Britain has opposed the ban but the challenge is that once legislation against a perceived danger is in place, a status quo is created which is difficult to contest. Even successful WTO trade action by the US and subsequent trade sanctions against the EU have failed.

The lesson from this experience seems to have been learned with the adoption of genetically modified crops in the face of adverse public opinion being delayed by voluntary or de facto moratoriums rather than legislation. There are, however, limits to this strategy.

The EU approved two genetically modified varieties, one of soya beans in1996 and one of maize in 1997. Since then there has in effect been a moratorium on the use of the technology.

This is coming to an end, with the EU commission suggesting the establishment of an independent European Food Authority, and a food policy that includes food labelling and the traceability of food and food ingredients which are of importance to genetically modified organisms.

This might seem a logical development in view of increasing concerns over food safety which have emerged particularly in the context of challenges that Europe faces with BSE - mad cow disease. And the EU has been subject to longstanding but low key criticism for failing to enact biotech legislation.

The terms of these proposed policies will, however, have a major bearing on the practicality of using genetically modified crops. They have been subject to criticism from both proponents and opponents of the technology. Indeed, proposed regulations have been challenged by the US for being a trade restriction.

While the theoretically apolitical EU commission appears to be attempting to take the firm ground of scientific evidence, the same may not be true of the co-decision makers for this legislation, the EU council and the EU parliament. The former is simply a cabinet of national ministers, the later is composed of directly elected members, who because of the way election by proportional representation is structured, tend to reflect their national governments position on most issues.

Commission proposals will, therefore, be subject to considerable horse trading between member states, before being enacted.

Probably coincidental to, and even a consequence of, the Commission's proposals, there has been increased evidence of opposition to genetically modified crops in France and Germany. In France there has been a spate of genetically modified crop trashing incidents which have been condemned by the government and by both potential candidates in the upcoming French presidential election.

In Germany, however, it is the government in the guise of the Green Party minister of agriculture Renate Kunast who is opposing anything other than impractical restrictions. But the longevity of the Kunast reign over German agriculture may be short. She holds sway as a result of her Green Parties junior collation position within the left of centre Social Democrat government which faces an election next September.

If experience of relatively recent general elections in the US, Canada and Britain are of any relevance, the issue of genetically modified crops are unlikely to emerge as an issue of any great significance in these two upcoming European elections. The finalization of EU legislation appropriate for the future of genetically modified crops would almost certainly benefit from delay until after the elections.

Paradoxically, therefore, the interests of adoption of genetically modified crops may benefit from further delays in enabling European legislation, even though the industry has been critical of such delays in the past. And experience suggests that it is important to get things right first time.

September 18, 2001