US Starlink Surprises.
- December 16, 2000
This Opinion was featured in Trade Talk in the December 16, 2000 issue of Crops
British farmers have no doubt been watching recent US Starlink maize developments nervously as they attempt to divine the implication for genetically modified crops in Europe. The episode has proven to be full of surprises most of which should have lowered anxiety levels.
Starlink maize was licensed in 1998 for livestock feed use by the US Environmental Protection Agency, but the agency declined to extend this approval to food use as it did not believe there was enough scientific data available to rule out allergic reactions by some people.
In the first place, of course, it was a surprise for British farmers that so much Starlink could have found its way into the US human food channel.
Without anything similar to the ACCS or SCIMAC’s code of practice for genetically modified crops, controls on the farm are probably more laxed. And US farmers often do not have the luxury of being close enough to end users for direct trucking to be economical. Thus even if the maize left the farm identity preserved, there is always the danger of inappropriate co-mingling in country elevators.
There are, of course, other differences in America. After five years of commercial production the industry is trusting of the technology and understandably more relaxed. There clearly was an infraction of end use regulations and this was undoubtedly why the industry went to such great lengths to clear the supply channels of the unlicenced product.
Surprisingly, following so much publicity, the episode failed to develop into a major issue in either the US presidential and congressional or the Canadian general elections. And this may be particularly significant for Britain. The outcome of the British debate will likely be decided by public perception of scientific evidence rather than the actual facts. It is, of course, not scientists but politicians who make these decisions.
The British biotech industry is now faced with the onset of the silly season, which will naturally precede the general election. To date, much to the frustration of the activists, the government has stuck by its science-based policy.
As deep as individual convictions are, their breath does not appear to be politically significant. The environmental argument did not feature prominently in the fuel taxes debate. This may be becoming evident to the government. The prime minister continues to be confident enough to continue make reassuring and even challenging comments. Recently it told a European bioscience conference that the Government would not tolerate "blackmail and intimidation" by protesters who tried to wreck research projects.
Surprisingly the Starlink episode has also uncovered an apparent change in the attitude of British food retailers. In the past they have played a central role in popularizing the issue with their use GM-free food promotion in their battle for market share.
In truth they have had their wings clipped by the Food Standards Agency which was reported to have made threatening noises about the truth of some of the claims being made in the spring. This was followed by the Advertizing Standards Authority ruling upholding complaints over claims on taste, health, environmental and animal welfare benefits for organic foods, the same kind of nebulous benefits claimed for non-GM foods.
Ironically it was action by the British cell of the Friends of the Earth that exposed this new retail mantle. Unsurprisingly, copying their American counterparts, the British Friends announced that it had found illegal genetically modified content in national and store brand corn chips. Surprising, at least to it, was the British supermarket chains’ reaction.
They chose not to remove the products, but challenged the Friends to produce the evidence supposedly produced by a German laboratory. The Friends moved quickly onto other issues, as the British Food Standards Agency started to investigate their claim.
top of page