open i

It is increasing evident that government policy regarding the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops in the UK has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with food safety, the environment and such. This substantially raises uncertainty of timing if not the eventual outcome. (850 words)

Justifiable concern over genetically engineering of crop varieties, food safety and the environment have been fading in recent years as all such questions seem to have been answered. And as just as importantly the rapid growth in the use of the technology elsewhere is leaving Europe as something of a technological backwater.

There can never, of course, be any complete and ultimate proof that nothing adverse will not occur. But the fact that GM crops have been grown commercially for almost ten years and are now used in almost all agriculturally significant regions of the world, the European Union excepted, suggests risks are minimal.

While the British government has been steadfast over the years over a science base for its GM crop policy, it is very apparent that other issues are being added on to that of the simpler one of genetic engineering.

This was very evident in the report on the three-year farm scale evaluation published last October. The evidence of this report was that using selected weed control techniques GM technology produced cleaner oilseed rape and sugar beet crops, with the converse holding for maize. Implicitly added to the agenda was that cleaner crops were undesirable, an issue that related to the weed control techniques rather the manner in which the crop varieties had been bred.

Following this the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) whose charge it is to advise the government minister responsible for decisions on commercial release chose as the basis for its advice Directive 2001/18/EC, European Union legislation mandating members state legislation, rather than the UK legislation enacted in response to the EU directive.

This is hardly surprising as the 1992 UK regulations, rather quaintly in the context of this new dimension, defines its purpose as

"...ensuring that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid damage to the environment which may arise from the escape or release from human control of genetically modified organisms."

The EU legislation does not contain the phrase "from human control," which seems to place the human control implicit in weed control beyond the purpose of UK legislation. Indeed, as any GM crop, like any conventional crop, can be effectively controlled with any number of conventional herbicides, it might be difficult to argue that any GM crop is ever released "from human control."

This may mean that the Government could argue that is not encumbered with existing legislation on the issue. This would be a considerable convenience in view of the very challenging political decision, it has to make on the commercialization of GM crops.

Conventional wisdom was that this would occur immediately after the next general election so as to minimize political damage. This seems to be changing, however, as the momentum for making the decision has increased.

Recent and very striking evidence of this was a statement by German Consumer Protection and Agriculture Minister and Green Party member Renate Kuenast saying Germany has to get ready for new biotech crops. It was reported that this had followed months of wrangling inside the German government and she expected EU-approved, genetically modified corn to show up on European supermarket shelves in the autumn. The reality is that EU legislation is now in place and the law is less subject to political manipulation than the prior moratorium.

Closer to home, however, it is becoming increasingly evident that the environment for decision making by the UK's Labour government is deteriorating. Superficially the government's substantial parliamentary majority should allow it to be master of its own destiny. But that majority is the result of a very wide spectrum of political philosophy.

This was not a major challenge when the Prime Minister was a universally popular leader. But the cement that he provided in holding the two wings of Labour Party together looks increasingly fragile. The implication of this is that the need for horse trading on issues will become increasingly necessary.

Issues such as GM crops and hunting with dogs may not be of much interest to the greater public, but they are important to the activist left wing of the Labour Party. Unfortunately in a political context they may be regarded by the government as pawns to be sacrificed for the general political good.

With the government facing considerable challenges in implementing reform on such main stream issues as funding for university education and health services, opposed by the left wing of the party, there is a danger that decisions on lesser issues have been or may be compromised to hold the government together.

The UK government undoubtedly will, like its German counterpart, have to accept the inevitability of the commercialization of GM crops. But there is likely to be plenty of wriggling between now and then.

January 29, 2004