open i

Advantage in the genetically modified crops issue seems to be fading for environmental activists. It makes good business sense for them to move on to issues with better fund raising potential. (700 words)

With the winter seeded British rapeseed crop in various stages of blooming, it might have been expected that the eco-mercenaries would be active rooting up those genetically modified trial crops which they suppose are about to cause genetic pollution. It would seem, however, that Greenpeace and the others have moved on to other issues which provide better fund raising potential.

Any business or organization is ultimately dependent on marketing its services. In the case of Greenpeace, and indeed the other environmental activists, the marketing challenge is to sustain the impression in the minds of potential donors that they are providing effective and necessary environmental alert services.

Markets for many goods and services, particularly those with a fashion component, seem to come and go without any very obvious reason. But in the case of the campaign against genetically modified crops more than fashion seems evident.

The product itself has received some serious set backs in recent months with claims made by the environmental activists consistently being called into question. The most recent and high profile example was the decision by the Nature, a mainstream British scientific magazine, to retract opinion relating to genetic contamination of Mexican maize.

After failing to achieve any serious scientific endorsement for their anti genetically modified crops campaign, the activists have, after more than three years of marketing this product, a challenge in promoting it.

But, like any successful business, the activist organizations do not place all their eggs in a single basket. And how they ultimately deploy their resources depends on their perception about probable returns they will get in various issue markets. If the genetically modified crop's issue begins to go stale, they will divert resources to more promising markets.

In the case of Greenpeace it has found such in the British government's decision to refurbish doors in its Cabinet Office using African rain forest hardwood, the felling of which, Greenpeace claims, threatens gorillas and chimps with extinction. The eco-mercenaries accordingly entered the building replacing the offending doors with environmentally friendly ones and cordoning off the area with 'forest crime scene' tape.

It would seem that they have found an even softer target than farmers. Few people care very much for government doors particularly when they are closed. Besides central London is a preferred location for press coverage and probably rates above anywhere in the countryside in terms of demonstrator comfort.

With the government's prosecution service having failed in several instances to prosecute successfully activists for trashing crops, farmers will no doubt be interested to see how successful they will be in defending their own patch.

Whether the gorillas and chimps are any more threatened than the British countryside or important than privacy with style in the Cabinet Office is a mute point. The reality is Greenpeace has hit on a high profile issue that is sure to be popular with donors and generate cash flow. And while they can milk it, they will let the difficult challenge of sustaining public concern over genetically modified crops fade into the background.

The reality is this already happening. It is now more than six months since Greenpeace has even issued a news release on genetically modified crops. Its other eight headline issues have all received such attention in the last three months.

This is not to suggest that it will be taken off the metaphorical shelf, as there will always be people who will buy it out of habit. But their number will diminish. There is also always the possibility, albeit a fading one, that it will receive serious scientific endorsement.

In the final analysis Greenpeace UK and others have failed to make genetically modified crops the kind of first tier political issue that could shake the British government from its science-based policy. Their chances of doing so now, the possibility of scientific endorsement aside, seem very remote. Quietly letting the issue die, therefore, seems totally logical.

But the matter of acceptance on a European Union wide context is still required before the technology can be adopted by farmers. And this may be where the activists will devote their energies, if there is advantage in it.

April 17, 2002