By Ben Block

British opposition to genetically modified crops is on the rise, prompting
security concerns at research laboratories across the country.

Nearly all 54 U.K. pesticide-resistant crop trials attempted in the past
eight years have been attacked, according to media reports. Protesters are
destroying the experimental crops to prevent biotechnology companies from
spreading genetically modified organisms (GMOs) more widely in Europe and
the developing world.
As protests become more fierce in the United Kingdom and more accepted in
other parts of the world, this mounting attention highlights stark
differences in the acceptance of GMOs.

The research sites are the latest battlefield in the fight over GM crops.
The biotechnology industry and several government leaders say the crops may
provide the solution to global shortages in food supplies. Environmentalists
say these promises are unfounded and that the crops instead encourage
widespread chemical use that may threaten human and ecosystem health.

The alleged vandalism has drawn research to a near-halt in the United
Kigndom. Only one trial remains after cyst-resistant potatoes were destroyed
at Leeds University last month. In response, researchers are meeting
environment minister Phil Woolas next month to discuss a secure research
facility for the country's last remaining GM crop trial at the National
Institute of Agricultural Botany in Cambridge.

European Union legislation requires research facilities to disclose the
locations of GM trials to the public. Concerned researchers say such
information has allowed anti-GM protesters to destroy these crops during the
experimental phase. "We demand the academic freedom to gain knowledge, and a
society that doesn't allow scientists to do that has got a problem," said
Leeds University researcher Howard Atkinson at a media briefing. Consumer
advocates responded that the public should be aware of field trial locations
for health and environmental safety reasons.

Controversial Crops Gain Heat

Beyond the United Kingdom, anti-GMO opposition remains high in many regions.
Some 200 South Koreans protested GM crops in May, and 300 Brazilian
activists attacked a farm owned by global agribusiness company Monsanto, a
developer of biotechnology products, in March. "The people who are
responsible for the recent vandalism are acting criminally. Aside from
impairing scientific research and damaging property, they are now putting
innocent people at risk," said Garrett Kasper, public affairs manager with
the company.

Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety in
Washington, D.C., said extreme protests are overemphasized by the media, in
part due to efforts by the biotech industry to discredit the opposition.
"The industry is very anxious that [unfavorable] facts don't get out there.
One tactic is to tar any critic as irrational," he said. "It's really tough
to get our viewpoints represented in the media."

The biotech industry says genetic modification produces crops that have
higher yields and are better suited for pest control - advances it says will
alleviate hunger in the developing world. Earlier this year, the United
Nations' International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD), in its sweeping report, agreed that
overall crop productivity may improve - for instance through
water-resistance. But the report also stated that information about biotech
productivity has so far been "anecdotal and contradictory." New GM
techniques are developing so rapidly that long-term assessments of
environmental and health effects tend to lag behind discoveries, the report
said.

Critics say the improvements have yet to be seen. "The biotech industry's
claims about genetically altered crops are perennially overstated. In truth,
agricultural biotechnology has almost nothing to offer to the world food
crisis in the short term," said Margaret Mellon, director of the Union of
Concerned Scientists' food and environment program in a press release during
the peak of this year's food crisis.

Instead, farmers now douse the landscape with herbicides in places where
pesticide-resistant crops have become widespread, critics say. They point
out that the most popular herbicide happens to be sold by Monsanto, the same
company that patents most GM crops. In addition, opponents say, the spread
of GM crops may lead to the creation of new food allergies and to the
disruption of the ecological balance.

In its report, the IAASTD also concluded that concentrated biotechnology
ownership has driven up the cost of seeds and forced developing nations to
buy crops not adapted to their regions if they choose to acquire GM crops.

Developing World Plants More GMOs

Still, GM crops are on the rise. Farmers planted 114.3 million hectares
(282.4 million acres) of biotech crops worldwide last year, an increase of
12 percent over 2006, according to the industry-supported International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

While most of this cultivation is consolidated in five countries (the United
States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay), more countries are turning
to GM crops as food prices rise. Chinese leaders said last month the country
must urgently cultivate more high-yielding and pest-resistant biotech crops.
Also last month, Malawi became the second African nation to approve GM
crops.

Compared to the heated opposition in Great Britain, consumers in the United
States generally lack concern about the growth in GM crops. As a result,
U.S. environmentalists have not made the issue as much of a priority as in
Europe. Freese, for example, works instead to avoid the spread of GM crops
in the developing world. Friends of the Earth is among the leaders of the
European anti-GMO movement, but the organization's U.S. chapter is focused
more on anti-cloning efforts, said Gillian Madill, a genetic technology
campaigner.

"When GMOs were developed in the U.S., we didn't know what was hitting us.
It was in our food service before people understood what GMO meant," Madill
said. "By the time GMOs became standard, we had no choice. We couldn't have
labeling because it was already happening. By the time it got across the
pond, in the UK... they had the advantage of seeing it happen here first."

In a Friends of the Earth report, the group says a shortage of rigorous,
independent studies prevents consumers from understanding the potential
benefits or dangers of GM crops. The field trials that were destroyed in
Great Britain were financed by German biotechnology company BASF, leading
critics to question the independence of the experiments. But the trial
researchers say that if security risks continue, any rigorous research will
become even more elusive than before.
www.checkbiotech.org