www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

By almost the same percentage as their counterparts in Sonoma County
rejected a GM-free initiative for their county1, the electorate in
Switzerland yesterday voted in favour of a five-year moratorium banning the
use of genetically modified organisms in Swiss agriculture2, December 2005.

While GM crops are now making tentative progress across Europe (this year,
the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Portugal, Romania and Spain are all
cultivating them commercially), Central Europe, and particularly the more
mountainous regions, are following traditional practises.

During the campaign, there was concern expressed for the sanctity of organic
farming, a major consideration in the region. That in itself is an
interesting concept. Having abrogated the use of any trace of GM material in
their activities, parts of the organic sector now go in fear of the
slightest commingling. Whether this is based more on philosophy than concern
for brand promotion and market share is a matter for discussion; anti-GM
sentiments often do appear to be strongly influenced by commercial
considerations.

It has also been commented by observers in Switzerland itself3 that,
compared with the earlier referendum in 19984, the pharmaceutical sector
(?red GM?) were less active in promoting the cause of biotechnology before
yesterday?s vote. Perhaps they were a touch complacent; the vote was not so
directly about them as the previous one had been so perhaps they felt they
could afford to keep their distance. But they were misguided to have done
so. Support for anti-science movements in the political sphere and more
widely is likely to rebound with unfortunate consequences.

Nevertheless, a moratorium is what the Swiss democratically decided they
wanted for themselves. So be it. If yesterday?s vote is binding for five
years, preventing the issue from being revisited in that period, might
Switzerland turn out to be the last country in Europe to recognise that GM
agriculture brings benefits, not disasters? In addition, farm subsidies in
Switzerland and more widely in the EU will decrease and make product income
more important and hence the economics of production more important. Swiss
scientists will have to increase their dialogue with the public, and
politicians will have to forge more pro biotech alliances. Is it moreover
conceivable that one day Swiss proponents of organic agriculture might
themselves perceive the benefits, heretical though such a concept may seem
today?

Sources:

1. Voters reject Sonoma ban on genetically modified crops. Contra Costa
Times (9.11.05)
(http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/13117309.htm)

2. Swiss back GM moratorium and Sunday shopping. Swiss info (27 November
2005)
(http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=6271033&cKey=1
133113222000)

3. Klaus Ammann. Die unerträgliche Leichtigkeit des Halbwissens. Neue
Zürcher Zeitung (5 November 2005). (English translation ?Partial knowledge?
available at [www.checkbiotech.org])

4. Swiss reject genetic ban. BBC News (7 June 1998)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/108372.stm)

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail