The GM controversy re-ignites

In the wide open spaces of the Mid-West - Kansas, Illinois, Missouri - there are thousands of square miles of genetically modified maize, soya and oil-seed rape being grown. In the South, 60 per cent of the cotton is GM. Three quarters of the food Americans eat already contains some GM ingredients in one form or another, manufactured in a vast agriculture industry worth an estimated $400 billion.

Why has criticism in America been so muted?
The growth of GM agribusiness happened with breathtaking speed within less than a decade. Few Americans knew about it and few seemed to care - either because, like here, people have little understanding of where the food they consume comes from, or (as the environmental lobby says) there has been a conspiracy by industry and the US government to keep the public misinformed.

The public in America seems to have more faith than we do in its regulatory system, which has been independent of the Government since the 1930s. The Food and Drugs Administration has not had a mad-cow crisis to deal with - but if it had, it would almost certainly have handled it more openly and efficiently. Perhaps the public there has more belief in the idea of progress through technology than we do and has less mistrust of profit-driven capitalism to answer problems.

Is there any opposition?
There is now, but far less than in Europe. As a second wave of GM crops begins to come on to the market, consumer rights activists and the environmental lobby are just making headway. The protest has partly been inspired by the controversy in Europe, and demands are growing among consumers for GM labelling, more transparency from the authorities and industry, more evidence of GM benefits - and above, all, a simple explanation of why official America regards GM technology as so necessary.

What do farmers think?
For the first time since GM crops were introduced, some American farmers are beginning to question their growing reliance on them - mainly because the controversy in Europe and Japan may, in time, affect their wallets through loss of exports and because of growing mistrust of the business practices of huge business conglomerates. By far the majority are happy to go along with the current trends which they say as inevitable. But some have seeds of doubt.

Bob Prevedell farms 1,700 acres of soya and corn in Southern Illinois - none of them GM crops. "My main concern is the way Monsanto is trying to hold a gun to my head," he said.

The company insists that farmers hold back none of their Round Up Ready soya seeds to plant for themselves, but buys new seeds from it each year. "It's on a continuing contract basis and I resent that. I want my freedom. Sure, I'm in a minority, most people are willing to accept terms because of the immediate financial benefits to them, but I can sell my non-GM crops and I like my independence too much. If I rely entirely on GM, with all the fuss elsewhere in the world, I might lose out in the future."

His neighbour Lonny Rhodes, though, who has 2,500 acres of the same crops, represents the majority. "I can see benefits to me in higher yields and far less work for more money," he said. "My direct environment - and I am convinced the whole population's - has improved because I have to use fewer pesticides. I see the growth of GM as inevitable and desirable. Who am I to get in the way of progress?"

Why do the differences in US and European attitudes threaten a trade war?

The crux issue is labelling. Britain and most other EU countries have introduced regulations demanding that food produced in any way by genetic modification must clearly say so on the label. Japan is likely to do so soon. In Europe this is seen as a freedom-of-information and consumer-choice issue. The US authorities view things differently. The Food and Drugs Administration insists it would not have approved a GM product as safe if it was not. "We believe in labelling the product, not the process by which it was made," said spokeswoman Laura Tarantino. "If a GM food is the same as another type of food, labelling how it was manufactured doesn't tell the public anything."

Food growers and suppliers in America fear a collapse in their export markets if demands for GM labels spread internationally. "In the present climate, particularly in Europe, labelling would look like a skull and cross-bones," said Dr Michael Jacobson, director of America's Science in the Public Interest group. A GM label could look similar to a health warning on cigarettes - and given the billions of dollars at stake no food producer would willingly accept it.