 |
A recent debate between Greenpeace International ED Thilo
Bode and a
Monsanto rep (sorry, not sure of his whole name) recently appeared in
the German press. Interviewer is Die Woche.Die Woche: Mr. Bode are you
personally afraid of genetically modified
food products?
Thilo Bode: This is not a question of fear. We believe that the alleged
benefits of genetically modified food products are far outweighed by
the environmental risks and disadvantages. This has to be avoided.
This is why the Greenpeace campaign against genetically modified food
products exists. Monsanto has always shied away from talking about
these risks and has not entered the public debate so far.
Frawley: Our campaign for the public served a very important role in
raising awareness and creating a dialogue and a debate that needs to
happen. We have put tremendous energy into communicating with
growers, the food industry and consumers. This is one of the most
highly publicized and debated introductions of new products in the
history of the world. So I'm a bit surprised to hear that you feel
that we are not willing to participate. I think that the fact that
I'm here today shows that we are very eager to have those discussions.
Thilo Bode: You are only here because public pressure has forced you
to be here. You would have loved to palm off your products in Europe
on the quiet. But what you succeeded in is that you and the whole
industry are now met with great mistrust in the public debate. In the
UK, the advertising association responsible to maintain ethical
standards in advertising has attacked you for making false and
misleading claims in your advertising campaign. Whoever acts like that
is not in a good position to lead an open and honest public debate.
Frawley: I feel very good about our tactics and I feel very good that
it's done in an open way throughout the issues. I would raise the
reverse question about some approaches that Greenpeace has used. I
mean you are very well organised; your issues have high attention in
the media. But what I've seen over the last several months has been
what I would call pseudo-science or junk-science. A particular
experiment is done, it's taken out of context, misinterpreted, it gets
a nice headline and when it gets examined in detail, we find that
there's no substance.
Die Woche: Can you name one example?
Frawley: Take the monarch butterflies. The headlines told us they
died while eating genetically modified maize. What's not reported is
that this was a laboratory study which the researchers themselves
called preliminary. And in the real world this maize doesn't come in
contact with butterflies, and butterflies don't eat corn. That all
looks to me like a very well orchestrated media approach, but is it
legitimate? Is it ethical? Is it really contributing to the debate?
I don't think so.
Thilo Bode: Actually, in this case we have simply quoted an independent
study published by the leading science magazine Nature
Die Woche: What then are the risks of the "Green Gentech" or genetic
engineering in the agricultural sector, so lamented by Greenpeace?
Thilo Bode: We are looking here at a further escalation of agriculture
on a large industrial scale, at monocultures with decreasing
biodiversity with increasing soil erosion and damage to the
groundwater resources. Furthermore there is a high risk of
cross-breeding of genetically manipulated species in the environment
with unknown consequences and possible health risks for humans. We do
not need a further escalation of the problems, we already see in the
intensive agriculture of today.
If it really was the case that your products bear no risks, you could
take out a liability insurance to cover potential damage claims. But
the insurance companies don't want to take over the risk for these
products and that rings an alarm bell. Additionally, the German EPA
has just clarified that an agricultural industry based on genetic
engineering is not sustainable. Our answer is an organic and therefore
a sustainable agriculture without chemical poisons.
Frawley: Ten years ago the Greens in Germany told me that
biotechnology in medicine will never have an impact on the
pharmaceutical industry, that it is dangerous and worthless. Today
virtually every newly developed drug is based on a biotechnology
approach. It is of tremendous value to mankind. Now I'm hearing the
same thing about agriculture and nutrition. But what is the base-line
that we use to measure risk from. There is a question of what is the
risk of doing something, and what is the risk of not doing something.
I think that history will show that ten years from now gene technology
will make agriculture more productive, our foods will more nutritious
and more healthful. I'm not speaking in an altruistic fashion, I
believe this will be an incredible business opportunity.
Thilo Bode: Don't get us confused with critics of genetic engineering
in the medicinal sector. We are not against technological progress but
we probe a little bit deeper into possible consequences of new
technologies. You believe in "Green Gentech" but apparently you can
not sustain your faith with facts. And besides the ecological risks
there are further social disadvantages of your heralded technology.
Greenpeace has asked the independent research institute PROGNOS to
investigate the impact of genetic engineering in the agricultural
sector. Result: Green Gentech is a job killer, another important
argument against your strategy.
Die Woche: What are the concrete benefits of Green Gentech?
Frawley: For example, our biotech soybeans are resistant to roundup
herbicides. It has lowered the production cost of soybeans by 20%.
The farmers can now change their farming practices; they no longer
have to plough the soil, which reduces erosion. For the consumer, the
new product has helped to control the cost of a basic food commodity.
Another example is the insect-resistant crops that allow cotton and
corn to resist the damage by worms and caterpillars. Independent
experts have shown that the amount of insecticide reduction that has
occurred in the US alone is worth over 2 million pounds. And because
the insects no longer penetrate the crops, fungal diseases couldn't
enter the plant through the wormholes. That means there are much less
microtoxins and other carcinogens in the plant and in the food and the
feed made of this plant. That's a huge benefit for the consumer.
Thilo Bode: You only talk about dubious advantages which have been
criticized by the German EPA and others and can not be confirmed by
independent studies. In the meantime more and more studies appear
which indicate potentially high risks for the environment: for example
the earlier quoted study which showed that butterfly caterpillars have
been damaged by genetically modified maize. Or the apparent danger of
inadvertently creating insects which are resistant to naturally
occurring insecticides which are used in organic agriculture. Your
products may be commercially successful because they offer a
short-term financial advantage to farmers but in the long run the
disadvantages far outweigh the benefits for the society and the
environment.
Frawley: I believe that farmers should have the choice to use whatever
tools they want and grow crops however they want. If organic farming
is the solution for some people, then I'm very, very supportive of
that. But in France last week there was a well received report on
organic farming that shows that because of the used manure the levels
of microbes with antibiotic resistance are very high on the crops and
on the foods. And there is a big problem of fungal contamination.
So, I don't think you can paint it black or white. My view is that it
is always better to have more options to move forward. Let the market
decide.
Thilo Bode: I would like you to discuss the risks of the technology.
You are systematically side-stepping the risk question. There is not a
single independent study which proves that your plants are safe. You
are not only manipulating the genes, you are trying to manipulate
public opinion as well. Additionally you have moved to giving your
seeds away for free in Latin-America in order to make farmers
dependent on you, both technologically and financially. That has
little to do with a substantial debate about the risks of a new
technology.
Frawley: Biotech corn and cotton are without doubt the most thoroughly
studied seeds that have ever been introduced by man in the 10,000
years of history of plant breeding. Today the DNA technology has been
used for decades, very safely, very effectively to develop a whole
host of products.
Die woche: So it is a zero risk technology?
Frawley: These products have very, very little risks. Now, what
someone would like to say is: But can you guarantee me that there is
absolutely no risk? As a scientist I can't answer this. I can't
guarantee you that a little green spaceship isn't gonna come down and
land right over here. Or a meteor isn't gonna come crashing through
this wall. If you want an absolute zero risk standard for any new
technology, then we simply can't introduce anything.
Thilo Bode: Risks and benefits have to be balanced. Nuclear technology
without doubt has the benefit of producing electricity but the
disadvantages are dramatically higher. We see the same problems with
Green Gentech. Monsanto and the regulatory bodies in the U.S. only
refer to a single product and whether it causes direct negative
impacts by itself. We here are much more concerned with a more
holistic approach towards sustainable production and the impacts of
agricultural industry on the ecosystem.
Frawley: I believe in the safety of the new technology. But Europe
has to make its own choice on whether it wants to grow this crop. Let
us take the risk of the consumer acceptance and of the branding.
Die Woche: What is your position on labelling?
Frawley: We believe in science-based labeling which should occur only
when the composition of the food has been changed significantly or the
product raises some kind of health consequences, maybe a sort of
allergic reactions for some people. But we understand that Europe is
different. Then we will play by those rules. We just ask that the
rules get clearly specified quickly, so that we can get our products
into the market place.
Thilo Bode: Apparently you are much more concerned with market shares
and a quick profit. That is perfectly legitimate from your point of
view but it is not sufficient for us as an environmental group which
has to represent the interest of the common good as well. And despite
your claims, you will not contribute to solve the problem of world
hunger with Green Gentech. Because the reasons why a lot of people do
not have enough to eat is not a global shortage of food products
Frawley: But hunger is not only a distribution issue. The fish
catches are declining, because there is over-fishing around the world.
The farmland is declining, because the urban sprawls are growing
faster than land can be put into production. The reality of what we
are dealing with is that on September 12th this year there will be 6
billion people on this planet. By the year 2020 the number will grow
to 8 billion. In addition I've seen many countries switch from a
grain based diet to a meat based diet. This also increases the demand
for food. So the production of food has roughly to be doubled in the
next 20 years. Today the amount of land that's used for food
production is the size of South America. As someone who considers
himself just as much of an environmentalist as I'm sure you do, I
would prefer the approach that we don't have to carve up another land
mass of this size to produce food. We prefer to double the
productivity on the land used today, so that we don't have to go to
the wetlands and in the forests.
Thilo Bode: When Monsanto claims that they want to solve the problem
of world hunger, it reminds me of a plumber who comes in to fix a
broken tap and starts out by flooding the entire flat. As far as water
shortage, soil erosion, overusage of fertile areas are concerned,
these are primarily problems resulting from the industrial
large-scale agriculture which you want to intensify further with
GreenGentech. In Africa and LatinAmerica, food problems primarily stem
from poverty and unfair income distribution.
Die Woche: Do you really think that organic agriculture will be
successful on a global scale?
Thilo Bode: Actually, organic farming is a necessity because it is a
sustainable form of agriculture, i.e. it is the only form of
agriculture which is not going to exhaust its nutrition and
water-cycles in the long run. If you look at it from a long-term
perspective, you will find that the yield will be equal to the
intensive agricultural practices we see today. And even GenTech can
not change the laws of physics and get more out of the soil than it
has put in.
Frawley: It's a kind of intellectual arrogance that you demonstrate to
farmers and societies out side Europe. I've travelled extensively
through Africa. I've just completed the adoption of a baby girl from
China. So, let's talk reality here, forget about this
intellectualism. The biggest limitation to a woman in Africa is the
amount of time needed for controlling weeds, so she couldn't grow a
profit. We believe that what's so important about the new technology
is that it is delivered as a seed that doesn't require new
infrastructure and can be used with a minimal amount of education and
participation. When my grandfather was farming in the US, 60% of the
population was on a farm. Today it's less than 2%. I believe this is
possible in Africa too.
Thilo Bode: I myself have been working in Africa for eleven years but
if I were you I wouldn't want to base my arguments on my personal
beliefs. The World Bank studies on agriculture in Africa identify
structural problems as the main reason for the crisis: unfair land
distribution, lack of expertise to work on the soil, exchange rates,
prices and last but not least wars. The lack of genetically modified
food products or crops is not mentioned in any study.
Frawley: In its first year last year over 600,000 Chinese farmers used
the BT-cotton, which in some cases doubled the yields. In China they
now call the BT-cotton "Miracle cotton". Why repeat the agricultural
systems developed by Europe and the US in China.
Thilo Bode: It is exactly the environmentally damaging industrial
large scale agriculture, which we do not want to repeat. This is going
to be realized in the industrializing countries as well and Monsanto
certainly does not have a good track-record there. In Brazil for
example a court has decided that your soya beans have to undergo a
detailed environmental impact assessment before they can be
introduced. And as far as the Chinese (who I respect very much) are
concerned, the fact that they buy your products does not necessarily
mean that they are very good. It is just that the yield of Chinese
crops is very low. Conventional seeds would have improved output
equally.
Die Woche: Is there any point where you see growing understanding
between Greenpeace and Monsanto?
Frawley: For example, we don't view biotech and organic farming as
being conflicts. Some of the organic farmers that I talked to now
have seen how a genetically modified product that doesn't require an
insecticide has benefits.
Thilo Bode: I appreciate your personal stance on organic farming but
this is not about Greenpeace and Monsanto. As an advocate for large
parts of society we are simply not satisfied with how serious Monsanto
is talking about the involved risks. And in the end it will only be
society which is going to decide which risks are deemed acceptable and
which not.
Frawley: All we ask is a science-based regulatory system and the
opportunity to bring these new products into the market place so that
consumers can vote with their pocket. |