What if it was your neighbour?
-October 12, 2000
This Opinion was featured in the Ocober 12, 2000 issue of Canada's The Western Producer
How would you feel if a group of activists attempted to destroy a neighbour’s crop, were caught red handed by the police and duly charged, but were then found not guilty of the offense which they admitted perpetrating?
Probably not too differently from many British farmers when they heard last week that a jury had acquitted 28 Greenpeace members of criminal damage to a legally grown genetically modified maize crop, as they had "lawful excuse." Enough is enough.
And this is where the environmental activists crusade against genetically modified crops is in danger of coming unstuck.
Their strategy has been to try to stall the ongoing program of field scale environmental research by damaging crops and indirectly intimidating farmers who are hosting these trials. This has generated plenty of publicity, but few farmers have quit.
The jury decision is now heralded by the activists themselves as the final nail in the coffin of genetically modified crops in Britain. With what appears to be a legally created "open season" on these trials next summer, the activists might be forgiven for thinking that their game is as good as in the bag.
But they almost certainly fail to understand their prey. Most farmers have been quietly waiting for the green light of environmental approval and will not take well to the prospect of its postponement or cancellation.
In the eyes of most farmers the status of the activists has been raised from a nuisance to a threat. More potential hosts for the trials are likely to be attracted than deterred by this development.
Those promoting the trials, both within government and from the industry, are not quitting and the police intend to continue prosecuting. Next summer may, therefore, be a hot one.
The reality, however, is that the activists have an uphill struggle. For a start there is the question as to whether they will be able to muster enough eco-warriors to have much of an impact. Many of the Greenpeace 28 were employees and there was no meaningful local participation.
This summer, while Greenpeace was waiting for the trial, other activist organizations were not able to mount much of a campaign. Some activist organizations are well financed and could hire demonstrators, but eco-mercenaries could hardly claim "lawful excuse."
And, if the activists are successful in stalling the trials, they have a second and more daunting challenge. They have to persuade government to pass legislation banning this biotechnology.
As things stand now it is perfectly legal for farmers to grow, harvest and sell genetically modified crops. Only a voluntary agreement between the industry and government, and supported by mainstream environmentalists, for a three-year moratorium to allow further environmental tests prevents them. An end to the trials could even hasten commercial growing.
The activists best hope might seem to be to persuade the British government to abandon its science-based policy for a popular approach to the issue.
Recently the government’s popularity suffered dramatically from being on the wrong side of public opinion on the fuel taxation issue. As they approach an election they will surely want to avoid a repeat.
But this issue is unlikely to be of enough public interest to worry the government. Conspicuously, the government’s environmental argument for high fuel taxation does not seem to hold much sway with the British public.
In reality the best hope for a ban on genetically modified crops is unfavourable environmental findings from the field trials. Thus, even the activists’ motivation for attacking the trials is ambiguous.
When attacking an unpopular target such as a multinational corporation, the likes of Greenpeace do not really have to prove their case as the public wants to believe them. But farmers are a much tougher nut to crack.
top of page