There are indications that some Irish campaigners against genetically modified (GM) foods are planning to step up their protests in the form of "direct action" against crop trial sites and supermarkets selling such produce.
It is understood, according to reliable sources, that an attempt may be made to stage a "genetiX snowball" type of campaign, similar to that in Britain for the past month, which involved pulling up test plants. It has received prominent media coverage.
Monsanto's business manager for Ireland, Dr Patrick O'Reilly, yesterday said it was aware from emails on the Internet of how the "genetiX snowball" campaign was being orchestrated in Britain and the US. The company "would not be surprised" if it was extended to Ireland. The US multinational has planted five Irish trial sites for GM beet this summer.
Monsanto would take "appropriate measures" if a similar campaign was in the offing, he said. If criminal damage was caused, it would seek a prosecution by making a complaint to the Gardai as happened after damage to its Wexford site in June.
Genetic Concern, the main group in Ireland campaigning against GM crops, has always stated it is pursuing legal means of protest. It has concentrated its efforts on legal actions against the Environmental Protection Agency, which licenses Monsanto's tests here.
Those involved in the genetiX snowball campaign have been seeking a five-year moratorium on the release of GM crops, pending further research and public consultation. It is described as "a campaign of non-violent civil responsibility", modelled on the Greenham Common snowball campaign of the 1980s, notably its tactics of scaling up the number of protesters with each incident.
The group is not typical of the current generation of eco-warrior, many of whom have a nomadic existence moving from one protest site to another. In contrast, it has been described as "middle England taking direct action", and its membership includes teachers, a journalist and a solicitor. It cites as justification for its action a recent poll commissioned by the Observer, showing 76 per cent of those surveyed did not want GM crops in the UK.
Its action has prompted other environmental groups to attack sites, usually under the cover of darkness. In contrast, genetiX campaigners announce their intentions, and say they will "continue pulling up plants until the government takes action".
Monsanto has secured injunctions in an effort to protect many of its 70 test field sites, and has initiated civil proceedings for damages against saboteurs. It has, however, not been pursuing charges for criminal damage. As a consequence, protesters are usually released shortly after being arrested.
Campaigners believe the company's decision to pursue a civil route may be to prevent the use of a possible defence under UK criminal law which allows for reasonable force to be used to prevent a crime. The campaigners claim that "gene transfer from genetically engineered test field sites by pollination or other mechanisms represents criminal damage", according to their spokesman, Mr Andrew Wood.
While the campaign has achieved success in publicity terms, there have been setbacks; notably when an experimental site mistakenly believed to involve GM crops was destroyed by an unknown group.
GenetiX's action has coincided with a £1 million advertising campaign by Monsanto. It was not anticipated that it would be extended to Ireland, Dr O'Reilly said, as a "reasonable debate" was in progress here. It was felt that supporting "debate at local level" was a better approach because of the State's size. Whenever there was a meeting on the issue, including those organised by environmental interests such as Genetic Concern, Monsanto hoped to have a representative present, he said.
The Department of the Environment and the Food Safety Authority are due to issue their verdicts on GM technology shortly. Should they endorse its use - which is likely on the basis of weight of expert opinion - it could further fuel protests by its opponents.
