Market Farming

["Kevin Ancell" <kancell AT goodearthgardens.com>]

[B] A Strange Hybrid...Organic Food And Biotechnology
June 27, 2001

THE BridgeNews FORUM: On farming, farm policy
and related agricultural issues.

---------------------------------------------

* Anti-Biotech Activists Are Faced With Fading Public Interest And

A Clean Environmental Bill Of Health For Genetically Modified Crops


By David Walker, agricultural economist

BridgeNews

NORWICH, England--While the genetically modified crop war is being waged
with intensity elsewhere in the world, the front in Britain has been
relatively quiet in the past few months.

This is surprising, considering that Britain has just has a general
election. The greatest challenge for the anti-biotech activists is the
government's science-based policy and the election seemed an ideal ambush
opportunity.

With this policy still intact and the three-year program of farm scale
trials well into its second year, the activists are faced with fading public
interest and a clean environmental bill of health for genetically modified
crops.

The usual range of interest groups (from the football association looking
for funding for a national stadium, to the London underground operatives
opposing privatization) were craving attention during the election campaign.

The foot-and-mouth outbreak meant that countryside pursuits, including
electioneering and eco-terrorism, became politically incorrect for a while.

But as with the American and Canadian elections last year, the genetic
engineering of crops never developed into much during the delayed British
election campaign.

The activists soundly rounded both major parties for their environmental
policies. The field was therefore open to the Green Party, which fielded
candidates in about a quarter of the constituencies. It did manage to win
over 3 percent of the vote in areas where other environmental concerns, such
as new roads, were the local issue. It seems that, while biotech issues sell
newspapers, they do not buy votes.

The activists did, however, make a couple of territorial gains, in Wales and
close to organic production. The Welsh assembly back in May declared Wales a
GM-free zone. This motion appeared to have no legal bearing, the Welsh
Secretary of Agriculture admitting as much.

But as it had been requested by a petition with 10,000 names, compared to a
population of 43,000 full and part-time Welsh farmers, it's probably of some
political significance.

The scientific steering committee overseeing the environmental trials had
emphasized the need for a good geographic spread of trial sites, even
through the Welsh assembly's opinion was known. The activists were able to
mobilize sufficient local interest to get three trials stopped or moved
beyond the borders of the principality.

The washout in Wales is unfortunate for those farmers wishing to use the
technology but means little in economic terms. Arable farming in Wales is
limited. Welsh farmers seed just 1.3 percent of the total U.K. cereal
acreage.

The site of a fourth trial at Wolston in central England was just over three
kilometers from the Henry Doubleday Research Association's Ryton Organic
Garden.

The Soil Association which promotes organic agriculture in Britain has a
policy of not licensing organic production within three kilometers of GM
crops. It actively champions the non-GM status of organic food.

~

Industry guidelines for siting trial have respected this, although there
seems more promotional than scientific justification for the distance
policy.

With the Wolston trial so close to the organic garden, the Soils Association
had a heaven-sent opportunity for free promotion. It wrote to the
environment minister threatening to withdraw the organic garden's organic
status unless the GM crop trial site was moved.

In turn the minister asked the scientific steering committee to have the
Wolston trial moved. The committee came to what appears to have been a
majority decision that there was no scientific basis for moving the trial.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a large and well- financed
conservation organization and a member of the committee, then took the
opportunity to express its credentials by threatening to withdraw from the
committee.

Meanwhile, the industry was negotiating with the Soils Association on its
threat to withdraw the organic garden's organic status. A further
measurement confirmed that the organic garden was outside the three-
kilometer zone, but the industry was undoubtedly mindful that the issue was
being raised within the politically sensitive time frame of a general
election campaign.

So agreement was reached for moving the trial once, it seems, that the Soils
Association acknowledged there was no legal or scientific basis for its
stance.

Something of precedence appears, however, to have been established. It
certainly seems enough for even a dull litigation lawyer to go to court
over.

This might seem to be a threat to the eventual use of the biotechnology in
Britain. The reality, however, is that the Soils Association's exclusion
zone is commercially motivated.

Vested interests have created the perception that genetically modified crops
are a health risk and environmental hazard. The challenge for the industry
is to prove otherwise. In the United Kingdom, this process is advancing
steadily.

The next phase will be to demonstrate this specific biotechnology, like most
others, has health and environmental benefits. As soon as this occurs, the
Soils Association must surely adopt genetically modified crops as an organic
option.

Such a U-turn in a strongly held conviction may seem improbable. The reality
is, however, that the organic food movement is operating in a commercial
environment. As soon as its clientele begins to doubt the benefits of
organic food, demand will evaporate.

To continue to succeed in this style of niche market, the organic movement
will need to be nimble. If organic agriculture continues to expand, it will
almost certainly be with the help of genetic engineering. GM-free zones
around organic production will not be a long-term issue, and even the Welsh
may be won over. End

DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm outside
Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London for the
Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of the
Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. He also maintains a Web site at
www.openi.co.uk. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews, whose
ventures include the Internet site www.bridge.com.


Article Found In
Agricultural Biotechnology
Agricultural Business, Technology & Production
Quick Search





  Copyright © 2001, Individual.com, Inc.TM