Debate through destruction - GM crops hit in France

Debate through destruction – GM crops hit in France

GRAIN

On the 13 April 2000, 200 or 300 people converged on a two hectare field in Southern France. Growing in the field was genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape. At 11.45 in the morning everyone begun cutting the crop, keenly watched by the gathered media, and by lunchtime everyone had left. The GM plants lay withering in the sun, their undeveloped seeds denied the chance of germinating. Wallflowers (close relatives of oilseed rape) had been intercropped with the GM crop to test if genes would be transferred from one plant to the other. The experiment was carried out by CETIOM (Technical Centre for Oilseeds in France), a research institution funded by oilseed producers.

A month later, police arrested nine people for the destruction of the experimental crops. Car number plates noted on the day of the cutting were used to track down eight of the people. The ninth was José Bové, spokesperson for the Confédération Paysanne (see box) and one of the most famous anti-globalisation protestors in the world. José Bové became famous for dismantling a new McDonalds restaurant to protest against US trade sanctions on European food products, and for sabotaging a number of other GM experiments. His actions have taken the cause of Confédération Paysanne to the international stage. With his handlebar moustache, his signature pipe, and his eloquent and convincing way of speaking in public, he is a favourite with the media. Wherever José goes, the media enthusiastically follows. And in April 2000, they followed him into the fields to photograph him cutting the crop. After seeing his picture in the newspapers, the police arrested Bové too.

On the 17 September 2002, the day came for the defendants to appear in court in the medieval town of Foix. Some 500 people sung and shouted their way through the streets to the courthouse. Thousands of people turned up over the course of the day to join in the festivities: music, theatre, discussions, eating and drinking in the streets below the courthouse. Meanwhile, in court, the real theatre began. The judge, Jean-Louis Boué, turned the court case into an in-depth public debate on the issues of GM crops and the rights that people have in relation to them. It was a fine courtroom drama, with the usual scenes of interruptions, raised voices, and the often comical rapid exits and re-entries by the three judges to discuss a legal technicality.

The state prosecutor tried to assert that discussion on the issues of GM crops was not needed. The defendants had illegally cut the crops, causing damage to property, and that was the end of the matter. But the judge did not allow the case to be that simple, making it clear he wanted the defence to have their chance to put forward their case.

Contamination is the process by which genes from a GM crop spread into other closely related plants in the surrounding area. This process is irreversible and the consequences are poorly understood. Guy Ribat, speaking on behalf of the prosecution and a researcher for the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), admitted that contamination was inevitable, even over very large distances, but was considered negligible more than a few metres from the GM crop. However, Daniel Evain, a former Monsanto researcher on oil seed rape claimed that Monsanto had found high levels (10%) of oilseed rape contamination in a field three kilometres away – information that was never publicly released by Monsanto.

Insurance: One of the most important pieces of evidence to surface from this court case was the question of insurance. Ribat was asked by the defence: “Was the field where the GM crops grew insured?” The answer to this was “no”. The next question was: “If my nearby organic farm was contaminated, how do you think I would be compensated?” Organic farms are currently not allowed any gene contamination from a GM crop. Ribat agreed that compensation would be needed, though he didn't know how this would be provided. These questions strongly implied that without being insured the planting of GM crops was negligent, a legal foothold for the defence. But the truth is that it is impossible to get insurance for growing GM crops – the risk is too high for insurance companies.

Rights and democracy: Ribat acknowledged that local farmers and villagers were not consulted prior to setting up the experimental site. Local citizens were left in a helpless situation in which there no legal channels to express themselves. Telephone calls had been made, petitions signed and even the “mairie” (the local elected government) had complained, but they had all been ignored. The rights of the people who would be most affected by contamination were dismissed by the presumption that scientists knew what they were doing. What else could people do? The best non-violent action that could be taken was to cut the offending crops down. From the beginning, Bové claimed, “If there weren't actions like these, there would never be any debates on GM crops”. Direct action has ensured that the debate on GM crops has been brought to everyone, including a debate in the French national parliament for the first time in February 2002.

Legal: However much the judge may have sympathised with the defendants, he was still constrained to pass judgement within the confines of the written law. The defence pointed out that there were many ways in which the defendants could be legally acquitted. The European Court of Human Rights protects people's rights, and it was clear in this case that people had been disempowered and their rights and freedom to speech taken away. The defence also cited cases where other people had received ‘not guilty' verdicts for destroying GM crops in Europe. For example, in the UK in September 2000, Lord Melchett of Greenpeace and 27 other campaigners were cleared of causing criminal damage after destroying a field of GM maize in 1999. The defendants in this case had claimed that allowing the maize to flower and pollinate would have led to the contamination of other crops in the vicinity, including Lord Melchett's organic farm.

At the end of the court case there was a real sense of hope. People felt optimistic that after the long debate and evidence, and the considered approach of the judges, justice would follow. But this hope was dashed on the 22 October 2002 when the judges fined José Bové 3,000 Euros ($3,000) or 100 days in jail, and each of the others 400 Euros each. But despite the disappointing judgement, an important outcome of this case is the debate over GM crops it has stimulated. As for Bové, he's back in court in November, appealing a judgement that sentenced him to 14 months in prison for another crop-pulling exercise.