But with GM substances increasingly woven like a double-helix into the US crop and food processing chain, from milk and cheese to fruits, vegetables, livestock and now bulk crops like corn and soybeans, the country's biotech remains demand-driven and will leave Europeans increasingly isolated and behind without acceptance, industry analysts say.

"In general, the consensus of people is that Europe may or may not choose to put some restrictions on them but that's going to have little if any impact on the adoption of biotech products in the US and the rest of the world," said Terry Francl, chief economist at theAmerican Farm Bureau Federation, the largest farmers' organisation. "At some juncture, the Europeans are going to have to decide how they want to handle it, with labelling or what. But basically, given the adoption rates that are going on, the majority of our crops are going to be biotech in a very short period of time," Francl said.

The US had approved 35 GM crops, but many more GM enzymes and other substances are used in food processing. But the EU has approved only nine GM crops, none since March, 1998. Last week a plan to grow an EU-approved strain of corn in Austria was scrapped, citing negative public opinion. The US corn processors like Cargill Inc last week warned farmers that EU-destined corn must be from approved GM seeds. But farm groups still say the tide of GM use is rising.

The National Corn Growers Association estimates that GM corn will account for 35 per cent of US acreage in 1999, up from 28 per cent last year. The American Soybean Association expects GM soybeans will be seeded on asmany as 40 million acres (16.19 million hectares), or 55 per cent. GM cotton will total more than half of acreage. GM potatoes are also used and GM sugar beets are to make their debut. The contrast with Europe's caution could not be more stark. But analysts see US attitudes on biotech foods driven by two basic differences: consumer trust and food economics.

Awareness: In February, the International Food Information Council, A US industry group, commissioned a telephone poll of 1,000 adults on biotechnology. The results indicated a relatively low level of awareness about the technology but a willingness to accept it once approved by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulators. That was consistent with previous polls on US consumer attitudes. "Let's face it, a lot of people in this country are pretty apathetic about this," said Dr Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a public interest group that has campaigned for better regulation and review of biotech foods.

"The first thing thatshould happen is labelling," she said. "In the absence of a strong regulatory system which would take some time to strengthen, labelling is the best so people can avoid the food if they are worried about it. It's also a way one can trace problems," she said. "The guinea pigs are going to determine whether this is safe."

Supporters of biotech say that scientific reviews have been thorough both inside and outside the US government. Public confidence on food safety regulation has also been bolstered by well-publicised moves like meat recalls from US processors on fears of e.coli and listeria bacteria contamination. "We believe if we get our science right, and we meet and exceed regulatory and scientific standards as we have done, our assumption is that consumer confidence in our products will follow," said Jay Byrne, a Monsanto Co spokesman.

"Over the long term, the expectation of companies like Monsanto is that the reasonableness, benefits and science behind agricultural biotechnology will move publicconfidence to where it needs to be," he said. Monsanto's position on labelling is to agree with whatever governments and the food industry want to do, Byrne said. "If the Europeans insist upon labelling, then you have got to give them labelling," said Christine Bruhn at the Centre for Consumer Research, University of California (Davis). "Openness is the way to put water on the fire of discontent," he further added.

The food industry remains cautious about the time and cost of labelling GM foods, especially with half of the food in the US (in Europe, slightly less) eaten outside of the home. Do you check and label all restaurant meals? "It's a nightmare," said Marshall Martin, a professor of Ag Economics at Purdue University. "I don't see how you do that."

Food economics: The changing structure of farm economics -- specialty crops for specialty users -- is adding pressure to create value in farm products and secure end-users through GM-enhanced crops. With the 1996 "Freedom to Farm" legislation in the US,farmers' "safety net" of government supports dating from the New Deal in the 1930's was cut, phased out over several years. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy, by contrast, still provides large farm subsidies, pushing back a day of reckoning in facing free markets, US farmers and analysts said. Bill Oltoff, a farmer in Bourbonnais, Illinois, illustrates the kind of decisions now driving US producers. This year he is planting 250 acres (101 hectares) of non-GM "high oil" corn hybrids, contracted to Continental Grain through a local elevator. He is also growing 700 acres (283 hectares) of food grade, non-GM soybeans on contract to a manufacturer. Those "production" contracts pay him a healthy premium over market prices for corn and soybeans.

He wants more contracts. Until then, with his remaining land he is planting 900 acres (364 hectares) of non-GM corn to sell to local elevators or feedlots; 250 acres (101 hectares) of "Roundup Ready" soybeans, a GM product that withstands Monsanto's powerful Roundupherbicide; 150 acres (60 hectares) of "BT" corn, another GM seed than resists the European corn borer insect; and 40 acres (16 hectares) of new Roundup Ready corn.

Separate handling for the specialty crops is accepted. "That's part of growing specialty grains, that you understand the necessity to preserve the identity. We are very cautious of that. Otherwise, if you're not a reliable supplier, you're scratched off the list," Oltoff said. Processors also see government-approved GM substances as a rich opportunity to create more biochemical and food value. "We look forward to the use of this technology to improve our finished product: altered oil structures, starch structures, for new products in the industry or better products for our customers," said Kyd Brenner, an official at the US Corn Refiners Association.

Separate grain handling and labelling or "branding" new GM crops will expand with new "nutraceutical" strains that yield valuable proteins, enzymes or other substances, he said. "They will have tohave yields and returns high enough to justify separation -- insulin from corn, for example," he said. Backers say such prospects will continue feeding biotech. "The genie is out of the bottle, and he is getting stronger," said Mace Thornton, a spokesman at the American Farm Bureau Federation. "The genie makes sense."