open i

Those actively opposed to genetic engineering have been particularly successful in recent years in grabbing the headlines. With this came the aura of political correctness of opposition to this biotechnology in Europe. But as the issue is being tested at the ballot box around the world, it is fast becoming evident it is politically irrelevant. (870 words).

In Britain with the high tide of opposition about 18 months past, it might have been expected that the issue would be dead with just the results of farm scale environmental tests to be awaited and the odd incursion into the countryside of eco-terrorists to be endured.

Britain as a member of the European Union has, however, to await for the technology to receive the nod of approval from Brussels. The EU commission mindful of its WTO commitments is like Britain attempting to stick to science-based policies. Many member states, however, still perceive political opposition to be significant and are fundamentally opposed to progress.

As evidence of waning preoccupation in the UK, a recent British Food Standards Agency survey of consumers food purchasing decisions indicates that only 11 percent of more than 1,000 consumers surveyed indicated they were very, or even fairly, concerned about genetically modified foods. This rather surprising finding, in the view of general media hype a year or two ago past, went virtually unnoticed by the media or those opposed to the biotechnology.

Likewise a recent recommendation by the British Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, that the decision on accepting genetically modified crops should include assessment of environmental benefits arising from their use, received next to no attention.

It even appears that the opposition to genetically modified crops are now withdrawing from open debate on the issue entirely.

They may, of course, simply be recognizing the ancient military strategy of being selective about the battle field when engaging the enemy. But avoiding the issues of food safety and the environment, which are middle order, if not higher, issues in the minds of politicians, they will be left with issues such as breeders rights, the influence of multinational corporations, ethics and such which are certainly in lower leagues.

The question, however, of why so many governments of other European Union member states, or their representatives, still support the anti GM cause remains. Recent proposals for legislation which would allow an end to the three-year European moratorium on licensing of genetically modified crops have been opposed by most member states.

Enabling legislation is even seen by most as a means of effectively inhibiting the technology by the back door. The proposed legislation is both criticized for being unworkable and too permissive.

The answer to European reluctance probably lies in election cycles. Recent US, Canadian, British and more recently local New Zealand elections have indicated that genetic engineering is not a major issue with the general electorate, even when actively promoted.

In Europe the biotechnology has yet to face the test of the ballot box. Hence the activists continue to be able to make their mark through publicity and lobbying in the absence of any poll.

With parliamentary elections over the next 12 months in France and Germany and at least four other member states, this issue will likely be tested. It is, of course, entirely possible that European electorates will view genetically engineering differently.

Many countries in Europe have proportional representation style elections. These naturally result in coalition governments with several governments relying on minority Green Party support. But even here there is evidence that the main stream parties are becoming frustrated by their Green partners.

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's call for a vote of confidence in the German parliament is evidence of his frustration with his Green partners. It will almost certainly result in the Greens being sidelined at next November's parliamentary elections, if not before.

If experience elsewhere is any thing to go by, however, the realization will dawn that this biotechnology is not the Frankenstein issue activists have portrayed it to be. Even though the wait has already been horrendously wasteful in terms of both current and future development of the technology, a further pause to allow government positions to be tested in forthcoming election would almost certainly pay dividends. Worse than no progress would the acceptance of prohibitive legislation which would be next to impossible to dismantle.

But even if and when genetically modified crops and other genetic engineering techniques come to be accepted in Europe, the question still remains as to whether future technological developments will be subject to decade-long baptisms of fire before acceptance.

This process is not only expensive in terms of lost opportunity. But it could very well keep less productive but still useful technologies in the laboratory and scare off investment in development.

The conventional wisdom is that the way that BSE, mad cow disease, has been handled by scientists and governments, initially in Britain and more recently on the continent, has created a credibility gap in the public's mind.

Concerns may fade with time. But just as likely the general public will become ever more frustrated in attempting to understand increasingly complex issues that in the past were judged by those who understood them.

November 15, 2001