open i

While the popularity of genetically modified crops elsewhere in the world almost certainly means they will eventually be accepted in Europe, nobody expects the process to be either smooth or swift. (800 Words)

With six years of commercial success of the technology elsewhere in the world and no serious scientific concerns, it might have been expected that even the most sceptical opponents would be placated. But the rump end of opposition to the technology is still, however, alive and wriggling, stimulated it seems by the media and food retail interests.

Recently announced British government plans for the last of the three years of farm scale environment trials suggest that nothing unexpected has been detected during the first two years. While minor amendments were made to placate opponents to the technology, these were made in the context of the concerns of organic producers over the technology, something which the results of the trials will logically dispel.

Probably more significant were comments by the Minister of Environment over the need for an independent review before final the approval for growing genetically modified crops. While there seemed to nothing new in this with the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission already in place to do just this, it does suggest that the government is anxious to distance itself from what it anticipates will be an unpopular decision with environmental activists.

Those opposing genetically modified crops grasped at this as a major victory. It now seems that even they recognize the farm scale environmental trials are now unlikely to turn up any unexpected. But the prospects of the delay implicit in a review and another chance to influence the final decision is likely to provide only short term comfort for them.

Paradoxically the three-year delay resulting from the farm scale trial period has surely increased the probability of the technology eventually being accepted even before the results of the trials are known. Over the last three years the area of genetically modified crops world wide has almost doubled to 52.6 million hectares and they have now been grown on all six continents. Further the positive commercial experience has been stretched from three to six years. The results of a few hundred British field scale trials are in the final analysis likely to seem rather irrelevant.

The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission undoubtedly appreciated this reality last September when it recognized that both potential benefits and hazards should be considered in any environmental decision over the growing of genetically modified crops. The impact of any minor adventious impact of genetically modified crops will be balanced against potential environmental benefits.

The most critical tenet for the future of the technology in Britain has been the government's science basis for policy decisions. This seems to have stood almost unchallenged since it was announced almost three years ago. Unfortunately it does not seem to be something that features prominently in the thinking of some member states of the European Union(EU) which also need to provide approval for the technology.

The EU Commission appears to recognize the challenge faced by the EU in the context of its informal moratorium and its World Trade Organization commitments, even if its recommendation for regulation and legislation have been subject to criticism by proponents and opponents of the technology. But its ability to impose its thinking on member states is very limited. And further if past experience with such issues as the banning of growth hormones in beef production is any guide outside pressures may not be effective.

The reality is that those who oppose the technology have been very effective in scaring politicians. But where the issue has received its ultimate political test, at the polls, those opponents of the technology have been marginalised. Major elections this year in France and Germany, the EU two largest member states, will be important.

If experience of major elections elsewhere is any indication, it will emerge that if concerns about the technology deeply are felt by some, they are not very wide held. This realization will, however, be a gradual process. The dawning will result from the tiring of the media, and possibly more importantly from retailers realizing the issue is not a very effective weapon in their fight for market share.

The challenge for the industry will be whether to compromise on conditions for acceptance of the technology as soon as the tide is seen to be turning, or wait for more acceptable terms. Experience with the EU is that once legislation together the bureaucracy to supervise are in place, they are difficult to amend and dismantle.

All this is no doubt a frustration for Monsanto and other companies that have developed the technology. But unlike the Wright brothers who almost a century ago never managed to manufacture their flying machine, they have already achieved a major commercial triumph. Acceptance in Europe will, however, be the icing on the cake.

January 28, 2002