The late 20th century will go down as a time of explosion in biological knowledge, with indications that biotechnology will at least match the silicon chip in its influence on the world. The US multinational, Monsanto, wants to introduce crop technology here, but has encountered growing opposition.
Genetic Concern - an alliance of environmental and food interests - has been its most vehement opponent. It mounted a legal challenge to the first trials of genetically-modified (GM) sugar beet proposed last year - the beet is modified to be resistant to Monsanto's own herbicide Roundup (glyphosate).
Monsanto's latest annual report is nonetheless stunning in its positive tone. Global planting of what it now calls "genetically improved" crops hit the 30-million acre mark in 1997. The word "sustainability" is associated with its technology. Talk is of a new form of agriculture, marked by less herbicide use, carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption.
Monsanto's recent press conference in Dublin struck the same note, citing independent research "showing biotechnology is a green science".
Genetic Concern talks of sustainable agriculture too, but there the similarities end. It resents claims that Roundup is biodegradable, insists the process of "horizontal gene" flow between species is a real threat and the science is not sufficiently evaluated. It does not accept that research funded by Monsanto is independent, though such a commissioning relationship between research and business is commonplace. Moreover, it cites numerous instances of problems with commercial growing where GM seedlines failed or were withdrawn. Monsanto counters this by saying these indicate its system of checks works.
One trial was permitted in Carlow last year. The crop was sabotaged in September. Genetic Concern insisted it was not involved, and was adopting legal avenues of opposition. A judicial review was due in December but postponed because a judge was not available. Five months later, the battle-lines have shifted somewhat.
Recently, the company acknowledges the case for adequate labelling of GM foods. In the past, it did not see the need, saying there was no difference from non-GM food. In short, the sugar was identical whether produced traditionally or with GM beet.
There is a growing realisation too that EU states, unlike the US, have reservations that will not go away unless greater consumer acceptance is secured. The British government looked set to impose a moratorium on such crops in response to such concerns only to discover last month it was against EU law.
The European Commission is attempting to introduce meaningful labelling and more rigorous yet quicker evaluation of the crops. It knows Europe is behind in the global biotechnology stakes. There are 33 GM products on the US market. Only two have met all the necessary EU approvals.
Undeterred by GM crop scaleup elsewhere, Genetic Concern has claimed the Environmental Protection Agency failed to follow the correct statutory procedures, and erred in allowing the trials because Irish regulations required the EPA to refuse the applications unless Monsanto had proved the trials posed no risk to humans, animals or the environment.
This case is not connected to EPA permission for Monsanto to carry out five new trials. But the outcome could have a bearing on them as the applications were vetted in a similar way. Monsanto claims it was subjected to more rigorous examination in the Republic than elsewhere. Genetic Concern may have environmental fears, but trade has moved the issue of GM food on to a new plane. A US Department of Agriculture official warned last month the US would lose up to $250 million in maize exports to Europe this year as a result of EU failure to approve GM maize varieties.
Such losses are the inevitable stuff of trade rather than environmental wars. The EU, it is predicted, would lose any GM food battle against the US with the World Trade Organisation acting as referee - another indication that these new foods are about to be an ever-growing presence on supermarket shelves.