Basel, Switzerland
May 20, 2005
By Martin Trancik,
Checkbiotech
Even after a new Swiss ordinance
regulating the labelling of genetically modified food was
adopted, the discussion around the use of genetic modification
in food production continues. The Swiss Parliament is debating
an initiative banning the use of this technology in agriculture
for 5 years. Under the
rules of Swiss democracy, it is possible for a group of citizens
to demand a popular vote on an initiative to change the
constitution provided that 100,000 of their fellow citizens
support their request.
Last summer, a rather unique coalition of environmentalists and
conservative farmers were able to gather more than 100,000
signatures supporting their common initiative in favour of
agriculture without genetic modification.
The initiative calls for a ban of genetically modified plants
and animals used in food production in Swiss agriculture for 5
years. Parliament is allowed to give a recommendation, or even
formulate an alternative to the initiative, but sooner or later
the Swiss will go to the polls.
Debate with a twist
It is well possible that during
the course of this campaign, the debate about GMOs in food
production will take a new twist. The ideology behind the five
year ban is not entirely inspired by scientific doubts and
concerns. Some of the proponents of the initiative believe that
the ban might be a shrewd move in terms of marketing Swiss food
at home and abroad.
The Association of Swiss Farmers, the influential
“Bauernverband”, is backing the ban because they want to support
the new quality label “Suisse qualité” , which they developed
together with Agro-Marketing Suisse. The respective statement on
the Association’s website is quite open about this:
“The use of GMOs doesn’t have any place in today’s food
production. The decision [to back the ban] will also boost the
new quality label ‘Suisse qualité’ introduced by the Association
and Agro-Marketing Suisse.”
If farmers themselves, bowing to consumer scepticism, give up on
GMOs does this mean that proponents of GMOs are fighting for a
lost cause? One chamber of the Swiss Parliament, as well as the
government itself, has recently rejected the ban which amounts
to a recommendation to the citizens to vote no as well.
However, it still could be difficult to refocus the debate on a
discussion of the merits of genetic modification. With farmers
putting the emphasis on their marketing concerns, they might not
be interested in an objective assessment of GM technology,
irrespective of whether they actually believe in its benefits or
not.
Internutrition hits a wall
One of the organisations facing
the struggle for objectivity and sobriety in the assessment of
genetic modification is Internutrition, a foundation dedicated
to the improvement of the dialogue between the public at large,
research and the industry. Some of its members belong to the
global players in agribusiness and nutrition such as Syngenta
and Nestlé.
Dr. Arthur Einsele, responsible for public affairs at
Internutrition, does not believe that a ban is a good idea. “We
have one of the strictest laws for the application of
biotechnology in Switzerland already. We, as an industry, are
happy to have this law, which enables us to apply the new
biotechnology in a responsible manner. Therefore, we do not need
the moratorium.”
It is difficult indeed to understand why a ban should be
necessary. The industry in Switzerland figures that 10 to 15
years might pass from the first field trials until the
commercial use of a genetically modified plant in Swiss
agriculture. Field trials in turn are regulated by a separate
ordinance, which is considered to be very strict by the
scientific community.
According to Internutrition, this particular legislation equals
a de-facto-moratorium on field trials anyway. Given that no
widespread, let alone deregulated use of GMOs in Swiss
agriculture is imminent, one might be inclined to consider the
idea of a ban enshrined in the country’s constitution as a
classic example of symbolic legislation. Usually, the need or
this kind of legislation arises, when society is emotionalized,
which is the case when it comes to the use of GMOs in food
production.
Communication 101
According to Dr. Einsele, tough
communication tactics employed by NGOs have their share of guilt
for this situation. “NGOs are very active in communicating bad
stories, which are not true. But their stories are very
emotional, and therefore the public believes them. It is today
very unpopular to stand up and be in favour of GM technologies.
Mostly, NGOs do not tell the truth. They tend to be
fundamentalists and there is more or less no dialogue possible.
We talk to walls.”
One of the examples given by Internutrition for the
communication tactics employed by their opponents deals with the
way Greenpeace reported the results of research into the effects
of genetically modified maize on butterflies, last December. The
respective headline created by Greenpeace read, “Genetically
modified maize by Syngenta harmful to butterflies.”
This headline was based on research carried out by Dr. Galen P.
Dively and his team from the University of Maryland. They found
that the mortality rate of Monarch butterfly larvae, fed pollen
exclusively from a type of genetically engineered maize,
increased by 20 percent.
What Greenpeace did not report, although it published the whole
study on their website, was that in real life, the actual risk
to Monarch larvae is extremely small given that maize only has a
very short blossoming period, which rarely coincides with the
larvae stage of Monarchs.
It went equally unmentioned that the researchers in Maryland
pointed out the benefits of this particular kind of maize. Such
benefits are that the use of chemical pesticides, which would
pose a much greater risk to Monarchs and other insects, can be
significantly reduced, because of the plant’s genetically
enhanced resistance.
Instead, Greenpeace requested that the results from Maryland
should be taken into consideration by the EU, because of
possible implications for food safety. However, according to
Internutrition, although the GM maize in question effectively
kills certain insects, it has been well documented for years now
that it has no effects on vertebrae, such as humans.
To label, or not to label
Labelling is another area where
insights into the debate around genetic modification in food
production can be gained. Both sides agree that it is paramount
to leave the final choice to the consumers.
Problems arise when some of the opponents try to imply that
there are health concerns to be taken into consideration. The
opponent’s aim is to ostracise the technology as a whole since
they want – and partly have been successful with their demands –
labelling to be mandatory, if GMOs were used at any stage of
production.
Opponents feel labelling is necessary even in cases where the
final commercial product does not contain traces of genetically
modified DNA. However, proponents argue that, if there is no
genetically modified DNA in the product, it is difficult to see
how the product can be considered harmful because of genetic
modification.
In an ideal world, says Dr. Einsele, labelling should depend on
the traceability of modified DNA in the final product. “Ideally,
analyses should be the only way to decide whether it has to be
labelled. Which means: as long as you can measure a certain
amount of genetically modified DNA, then it should be labelled,
if it is above the threshold value. But opponents want more –
even if you cannot analyse anything but GM technology has been
used, it should be labelled.”
“The worst case scenario for the research community would be a
situation where the idea of a temporary, but renewable ban,
would be considered such a comparative advantage that the
discussion of the merits of GMOs in food production disappears
altogether. This might be a real risk, if consumer scepticism
will be seen as a given fact – which seems to be the case with
the Association of Swiss Farmers.”
Copyright by Checkbiotech |
