Recent debate about the release of genetically modified (GM) crops into the U.K. environment has been stirred up by none other than the Prince of Wales in an article he wrote for a national newspaper. He claims that scientists are invading territory that should remain the "province of God" alone. Furthermore, the public feels increasingly powerless to demonstrate their concerns about genetic technology. Without adequate labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients, consumers have no choice and no power to reject the technology.

Consumer groups' apparent victory in the European Parliament, with the introduction of a law which requires the labeling of GM foods, has been short-lived. Loop-holes are now becoming apparent wherein only those foods containing detectable modified DNA or proteins will need labeling. Green and consumer groups are angry, because this will mean that 95-98% of the approximately 30,000 products potentially derived from GM crops will not require labeling.

Green groups have the strong backing of the public. ICM, a market research group, surveyed 500 adults for their views on GM foods. In response to the question: "Do you think crops that have been genetically modified should be kept separate?" 85% said yes, and only 5% said no. "Do you think foods that have been genetically modified should be clearly labeled?" prompted a 96% yes response and only 2% no. In addition, 95% of respondents said yes when asked "Should ingredients derived from GM foods be labeled?" Only 3% said no. A recent poll by another market research organization showed that 70% of British people wanted to ban GM food.

Not surprisingly, industry is concerned at the possibility of a public backlash against genetic engineering technology. Monsanto has launched a new media advertising campaign with the slogan "Food biotechnology is a matter of opinions. Monsanto believes you should hear all of them." The company also has a website to accompany their ad campaign at http://www.monsanto.co.uk/. Each advertisement bears telephone numbers for a number of groups such as Friends of the Earth who are opposed to GM foods. Their position on many of the developments discussed here can be found at http://www.foe.co.uk/camps/foodbio/genepress.html. Some of the green organizations named in the Monsanto ads have complained to the Advertising Standards Agency who deal with unfair advertising in the UK. Green groups claim that they do not have the funds to mount a campaign to counter such huge corporate advertising campaigns.

This frustration has seen some direct-action green groups engage in GM crop vandalism. Early in July, five women were arrested in Oxfordshire for damaging a test site for Monsanto crops. Such protests have recently become more organized. A key project is the "Genetix Snowball" which co-ordinates protests on the first and third Sundays of each month. At each event, a number of protesters turn up and dig up between 1 and 100 GM plants. More and more people are turning up to each event, so while the size of the damage can be considerable, the liability for each individual is minimized -- although the offense of criminal damage can lead to imprisonment.

A spokesperson for Monsanto has said that such activities are "just plain vandalism." There is also the concern that any safety protocols put in place by the crop growers will become meaningless if plants are carried off-site. Activist Zoe Elford maintains that all transgenic plants are bagged up and left on site. Currently, the locations of all GM crop test sites are available from the government. This makes life for the protesters somewhat easier. However, Monsanto argues that making such information confidential will not stop the determined few who seek to damage GM crops. Monsanto insists that the most appropriate way of challenging GM technology is by engaging in a debate with the government, not by attacking the companies or research establishments which are doing the actual field testing.

However, any challenges to current government policy have been dealt a severe blow this month with the case of Guy Watson, an organic farmer from Devon in the southwest of England. Supported by the Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association, Watson failed to convince a court that it was necessary to seek a judicial review of GMO trials in the UK. He is concerned that cross-pollination of his organic sweet corn crop by GM maize would lose him his organic status and be financially disastrous for his business. The judge, saying Watson's case was "unarguable," ruled that the government was entitled to accept expert advice that the risk of genetic contamination from the transgenic maize strain was "likely to be zero." However, it has been reported that representatives of industry have stated that "those who want guarantees of totally GM-free food must compromise and accept some contamination."

Contamination of any degree is not acceptable to organic food growers who must meet European standards in order to sell their produce as "organic." These standards include the requirement that there is no GM material in the plants. The Soil Association is one of the organizations which grant organic status in the UK. They argue that it will become impossible to consider any crops as organic. The Guardian newspaper reports that Watson has said, "If the trials are successful and the seeds get on to the national seed list, genetically modified sweet corn will be grown throughout the south of England. Every July and August, the air will be saturated with GM pollen. It will be impossible to grow an organic crop."

The journal Nature (July 2, 1998) reports that the actual effects of cross-pollination are difficult to assess, because the probability of such events is so small. While Pete Riley of Friends of the Earth states that pollen can maintain its fertilizing ability for up to 80 hours after flowering, government experts say that the "vast majority" of pollen grains can only fertilize for up to half an hour. Furthermore, it has been internationally agreed that 99.9% seed purity can be achieved by maintaining a 200 meter buffer zone between crops. In the case of Mr. Watson, the distance between the organic and the GM crops is 2 kilometers. Other factors which make cross-pollination exceedingly unlikely include the low probability that the two corn crops will flower at the same time, and the need for the organic crop to be downwind of the GM corn in order to be pollinated by it.

In response to the case, the Supply Chain on Modified Agricultural Crops (Scimac) has suggested that dialogues be opened between organic farmers and growers of GM crops. Where field arrangements cannot be reached (bearing in mind that GM rapeseed can transfer pollinating material over 4 km), more agreeable solutions might be achieved by the use of "mule" crops that cannot propagate, and "terminator" technology which involves engineering crops so that their seeds will not germinate. There is, however, some resistance to this latter option, because it would require farmers to purchase new seed each year.

By now the sweet corn crop will have reached the stage of pollination. The UK government will have to respond promptly if confidence is to be maintained in the organic food industry.

Sources
This article was drawn from articles published in London and regional editions of The Daily Mail, The Guardian, and The Observer, during the period June 6 - July 11, 1998.

Ben Thomson
Department of Law
University of Sheffield
lwp97bt@sheffield.ac.uk