[A-List] Britain/US split: GM crops

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

This news item also qualifies for inclusion under the "Destructive
Creation" and New Labour threads, among other possibilities. But the
recent emergence of Labour veteran and minister for the environment,
Michael Meacher, as an outspoken critic of government policy from within
the government is another likely sign of "Dromey syndrome" -- i.e., the
strategic shift of position by seasoned political opportunists who sense
an underlying shift in the trajectory of opinion and the possibilities
this creates. Meacher came to prominence in the late 1970s/early 80s as
a cerebral ally of Tony Benn, authoring a 1982 volume, "Socialism with a
human face" outlining Bennite policies along the lines of the then
in-vogue "alternative economic strategy" developed by, among others, Sam
Aaronovitch. Meacher began the book explicitly linking what was to
follow to the efforts of Benn to democratise the Labour Party. The
experience of the 1983 election defeat was enough to tell Meacher (and
others, e.g., Stuart Holland) that a different approach was necessary.
Thus, if you read the Benn diaries for the 1980s you witness a gradual,
almost painfully slow but very deliberate transformation of Meacher from
loyal Bennite to hard left (Bennism without Benn), centre left and
ultimately "soft left" (Blunkett country). You can also witness it in
the succession of books and articles Meacher wrote to justify this
reinvention (if you have the patience). It is a measure of Meacher's new
found acceptability that Blair could promote him to such a relatively
important ministerial position, with barely a comment from the press
about Meacher's leftist past. Like Jack Dromey, whose clothing in the
struggles of Grunwick were long behind him by the time he challenged
Bill Morris for the leadership of the TGWU under a Blairite tag,
Meacher's reinvention was complete.

Perhaps this is too one-sided: many on the left have found solace in
green politics following the collapse of the old industries that
provided the class base for organisation. Alain Lipietz in France is a
good example. Meacher, however, does not rank in Lipietz's class, not
least because to be acceptable to Blair and co. one would have to junk
an awful lot of baggage, thereby rendering one quite anemic politically.
The experience of the Greens elsewhere in Europe demonstrates the
poverty of green politics absent any red content (e.g. Joschka Fischer
in Germany, the removal of Lipietz as presidential candidate in France).
Meacher has also come pretty late to the conclusion, utterly inevitable
in the light of accumulating evidence, that EU strictures on food safety
and GM technologies would be under attack from US producers and the US
government. Recent victories in Brazil and India for Monsanto underline
how isolated the official EU position has become, and it's only a matter
of time before EU producers themselves want as big a piece of the action
as their US rivals. Therefore Meacher is being a little disingenuous
when he turns the GM issue into one of the US "steamrollering" its
preferred policies through. However true that might be, turning the
debate into a nationalist defence of British policy autonomy merely
privileges one set of technocrats over another, rather than highlight
the fundamental problems and dangers of GM technologies. But, as
politics, Meacher's emergence from the shadows is worth monitoring.


Meacher attacks US 'pressure' over GM
By Marie Woolf Chief Political Correspondent
The Independent, 19 August 2002

Michael Meacher reignited the row over genetically modified crops
yesterday, admitting that Britain was being pressed by the US to allow
commercial planting. However, the Environment minister insisted he was
"sceptical" of the benefits of GM and insisted: "We are not going to be
bounced into this by the Americans."

Any decision to open up commercial planting of GM crops would be based
on hard evidence, he said in an interview with The Independent.

Mr Meacher acknowledged that opponents of GM technology believed the
changes were being "steamrollered through", but insisted that the public
would be able to see all evidence on the impact of GM crops before
widespread planting went ahead.

Asked whether America was pressing for expanded GM production, Mr
Meacher said: "Well, you know there is. The Americans are very keen. The
amount of the prairies which have been cultivated with GM is colossal."

Mr Meacher insisted that he was "on the sceptical wing" of the argument
over GM. "Those people who do feel very strongly about it, to the extent
of going around ripping up crops, they may continue to do so.

"But what I think many of them object to is the feeling that the
Government is steam rolling it through. There has been intense hostility
expressed in many quarters. However, it is fair to say there has never
really been a controlled and balanced debate."

The Environment minister's remarks are likely to inflame the controversy
over the Government's handling of the GM issue, which received a blow
last week when it emerged that trial crops have been contaminated with
unauthorised GM seeds since the trials began.

Mr Meacher acknowledged that the decision would be "sensitive" But, he
said: "We are not saying we have a little closed group of five people,
and we are going to take a decision and tell you in our wisdom what we
are going to do. We are going to tell you what the evidence is."

The Government's farm-scale trials may not give an accurate picture of
the impact GM crops may have on the environment, he admitted. "We are
talking about the impact on plants, on invertebrates, on birds, on
insects," he said. "It's, what, 100 sites each year? But if you have
general commercialisation you may get different effects over and above
what these isolated fields will show."

Some of the herbicides which would be used on GM crops if they were
grown in Britain could "wipe out" a whole swathe of conventional crops,
he warned.