Revolution, or just plain revolting?

Less than two years ago, there was just one small group of people in Ireland who did not react with blank stares to talk of genetically modified food; a new campaign organisation called Genetic Concern. Since then the group has had good days and bad days. A High Court case - which it lost - may see a bill of some £400,000 falling on its lap. It was an action to stop the growing of genetically modified crops in Ireland which was taken, Genetic Concern believed, in the public interest.

Recently Genetic Concern unveiled the findings of an independent survey which revealed for the first time the extent of Irish consumer unease, with 62 per cent expressing concern about the technology. Some 11 different groups attended the press conference to voice solidarity. The emergence of consumer interests which resented the way largely unlabelled genetically modified (GM) foods were being foisted on them was striking.

Last week's case in which the "New Ross Seven" were the first people to come before an Irish court on charges of sabotaging a GM crop was another indicator that the GM food revolution is hitting every corner of the world and bringing controversy with it. It was US agriculture secretary Dan Glickman who made the blood pressure diagnosis. Cure for him is simply a question of opening up EU markets. Yet if you conducted a poll of Europe's consumers right now they would probably reject what Irish Times food writer John McKenna calls "the bland pill of GM food".

The US multinational company Monsanto, one of the main developers of GM crops worldwide, is currently suing a Canadian canola farmer in a landmark seed piracy case. Percy Schmeiser is one of hundreds of farmers accused of replanting Monsanto's patented, gene-altered seeds in violation of a rule requiring that farmers buy fresh seeds every year. The company says its "no replant rule" policy is to help recoup millions of dollars spent developing the seeds and to provide even better new ones.

Such cases, however, reflect the extent of radical redirection of farming. "This is part of the agricultural revolution, and any revolution is painful," Monsanto spokeswoman Karen Marshall told The Washington Post, "But the technology is good technology."

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland chief executive, Dr Patrick Wall, does not dispute this, but says he has yet to see a GM product which is of direct benefit to consumers. "The technology has potential to deliver some serious good. We have seen its benefits in medicine. It is wrong to rubbish it."

As head of a consumer protection body, he feels obliged to suggest its developers might be better deployed producing GM foods for consumers rather than for others in the food chain, instead of exposing consumers to hypothetical risk when there are no tangible benefits for them. If Monsanto wants to present the technology in a better light, Dr Wall says the company might develop a non-allergic peanut; wheat genetically modified to produce folic acid (and so reduce incidence of spina bifida); or fibre-enriched grain to reduce colon cancer.

In the race to the marketplace consumers got swept aside. There was little appreciation of the need for transparent labelling. Late conversion to "scientifically-based" labelling has heightened consumer suspicion. Sheer newness of products and limited research are fuelling fears, especially among many of those working close to the earth; farmers, organic crusaders and seed savers.