Against the Grain - eco-terrorism

National Review, March 6, 2000 by John J. Miller

Enviro-terrorists target farms

ON New Year's Eve, Catherine Ives spotted fire trucks and police cars streaking toward the central campus of Michigan State University. As she and her husband got closer to the hubbub, she said, "That looks like where we work." The couple had been planning to visit some friends, but they headed instead to MSU's agriculture building. "Is that smoke?" asked Ives. Indeed it was. Her office was in flames. She would spend the rest of the night at home, calling her staff to tell them they had nowhere to report for work on Monday morning.

Three weeks later, in Portland, Ore., Craig Rosebraugh received an anonymous phone call. A member of the Earth Liberation Front was on the line, taking credit for the blaze, which school officials now say did more than $1 million worth of damage. The saboteurs asked Rosebraugh to publicize a statement for them, as he had done several times before: "ELF struck back at one of the many threats to the natural world," namely, "research concerning genetically engineered sweet potatoes, corn, and other crop vegetables."

For his part, Rosebraugh defends the arsonists' action, declaring: "It's clear that the laws of this country are not protecting the environment. I support the individuals who are doing what it takes to stop corporate exploitation." But isn't this terrorism? "Truthfully, the only terror involved is from organizations that profit from terrorizing the earth. If a little terror puts them out of business, then so be it."

The MSU incident wasn't the first time radical greens had engaged in deliberate property destruction; it was merely the latest in a string of attacks aimed at genetics researchers around the country. Since July, underground groups with names like Future Farmers and Reclaim the Seeds have lashed out almost weekly, destroying crop fields from Maine to California. On September 13, in Mankato, Minn., they uprooted corn plants on a test plot run by Pioneer Hi-Bred, an Iowa-based company, and spray-painted "Free the Seed" on a nearby building. The FBI is currently investigating several such incidents, but so far it has not apprehended' any suspects--although, on February 2, agents showed up at Rosebraugh's home early in the morning with a search warrant, and carted away his computer and other belongings.

Eco-terrorism is old hat for fringe environmentalists. Groups such as Earth First! have a long history of monkey-wrenching bulldozers and spiking trees set to be logged. The targeting of genetics researchers at private companies and universities, however, is a new phenomenon. It might also be a sign of things to come. "This is where the animal-rights movement was fifteen years ago," says Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's a nuisance on the way to being a big problem."

This newest strain of terrorism grows out of the emerging debate over genetics and agriculture, which has raged in Europe for several years and is only now taking root in North America. At a January trade summit in Montreal, the Clinton administration bowed to global pressure and agreed to a treaty that allows countries to close their markets to genetically engineered crops--dubbed "Frankenstein foods" by their detractors--even when there are no data showing the foods to be unsafe. This concession is a major setback for American farmers and the biotech industry. Just two years ago, only 10 percent of the U.S. corn output--much of it destined for export--was genetically altered. Estimates vary, but last year that figure was no less than 30 percent, and may rise again this summer.

Crossbreeding, of course, is an ancient custom. Farmers in search of better crops have experimented with it for thousands of years. The controversy today is over high-tech crossbreeding--lab work that removes the DNA from one species, such as a bacterium, and drops it in another, such as corn. The goal is to boost a crop's performance by making it generate a higher yield, decreasing its water use, or improving its resistance to bugs, disease, and sprays.

That's great news for the environment: Increased agricultural production means more food for a growing world population, and less strain on wildlife habitats. What's more, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that genetically modified crops are unhealthy. The Food and Drug Administration must approve all of these products before they can show up in grocery stores.

Which is no consolation to the skeptics. In 1998, Prince Charles energized anti-biotech activists in Europe when he declared that he would never knowingly eat or serve modified food. "I happen to believe that this kind of genetic engineering takes mankind into realms that belong to God and God alone," he pronounced. Last year, American researchers said that pollen from genetically enhanced corn plants poisoned monarch-butterfly caterpillars. Their claims have been heavily criticized, but the damage was done; a wave of media attention fueled opposition to the new technologies. There is growing pressure in Congress for the federal government to require labels on altered food. The market is also starting to respond. On January 27, Frito-Lay said it would stop purchasing modified com.