Anti-GM warriors lose their credibility.
- October 21, 2000
This Opinion was featured in Trade Talk in the October 21 2000 issue of Crops
The recent Norwich jury verdict acquitting 28 Greenpeace members charged with criminal damage to a 1999 genetically modified maize crop may have a wide-ranging implication for farmers and others who are targeted by activists. Paradoxically it may have little bearing on the future of the environmental research and the future for this biotechnology.
In the narrow context of the field trials, which are, of course, opposed by Greenpeace and other activist environmental groups, the jury decision is generally seen as a set back. It is anticipated that the activists will regard next summer as "open season" for these trials.
The activists' strategy of attempting to stall this research by discourage farmers from hosting these trials through implicit intimidation and physical destruction of the trials has received a great deal of publicity, but has not been overly successful.
The thinking is that, without the implicit protection of the law, farmers will be less inclined to host these field trials. This seems reasonable. Some would even suggest that every crop sprayer and fertilizer spreader in Britain is now a legitimate target for direct action by anybody who "genuinely" believes in the environmental benefits for organic food production.
The majority of farmers, however, almost certainly support genetic engineering technology and are waiting quietly on the sidelines for the green light of environmental approval. The prospect that this green light may be postponed or even canceled because of a jury verdict, which they farmers will almost certainly view as unjust, is likely to attract more potential hosts for the trials than it deters.
To date the activists have been regarded as a nuisance. The not guilty verdict raises their status to a threat. Many farmers will now feel the need to be more actively involved
Those promoting the trials, both within government and from the industry, have indicated that they plan to continue, with the police intending to continue to prosecute. It is, therefore, possible that there will be lots of action next summer.
There is, however, no certainty that the activists will be able to organize enough support to have a material impact on the trials. If the background of the Greenpeace 28 is anything to go by, it would seem that they will have difficulty in sustaining any sort of campaign. Many of the Greenpeace 28 were employees and there was no meaningful local participation.
And this summer, while Greenpeace was sidelined by the pending trial, other activist organizations were not able to muster many eco-warriors. Some of the activists are well financed and could possibly pay participants, but eco-mercenaries could hardly claim "lawful excuse."
More importantly the activists need not only to halt the trials, but also to convince government to pass legislation banning the growing of genetically modified crops. If they are successful in the former and not the latter, they could even hasten commercialization of this technology.
The dilemma for the activists here is that the more successful they are, the more they will alienate those who are genuinely interested in getting answers to environmental questions. Their best hope is, of ocurse, unfavourable research reports. The activists' motivation for attacking the trials is, therefore, ambiguous.
Their next best hope is to persuade the government to abandon its science-based policy in favour of a possibly popular blanket ban. Their chance here may be seen as improving.
Having suffered a dramatic set back in opinion polls from being on the wrong side of public opinion on the fuel taxation issue, it will be very alert in the run up to the general election.
But this issue is unlikely to have a broad enough interest base to worry the government. Conspicuously, it has not pursued the environmental argument for high fuel taxation with any vigour suggesting that it is not seen as holding much sway with the public.
The reality for the activists is that while they have been successful in keeping the issue of genetically modified crops in the public consciousness, they have not managed to uncover any truly damning evidence. The danger for them is that in the process their credibility continues to be eroded.
top of page