Sep 15, 2004

Archive

Send

2004 ABIC in Cologne

Rationality and radical criticism

(15. Sept.) For three days Cologne has been playing host to one of the world’s most important conferences on agricultural biotechnology. Scientists, business executives and policy makers from all over the world have been discussing the wider perspectives of green genetic engineering. Protesters gathered in front of the exhibition centre, where the ABIC was taking place.

ABIC goes European: in deciding to hold the biennial Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) outside North America for the first time, the organisers hoped to give renewed momentum to agro-biotechnology in Europe. But the conference itself and the demonstrations by opponents of genetic engineering showed once again just how complicated the political scene is where agro-biotechnology is concerned, particularly in Europe.

The next ABIC conference convenes in Melbourne, Australia in 2006.

Regional government: Yes and no.

The North Rhine Westphalia minister for economic affairs, Schartau (SPD), opened the ABIC conference with the announcement that his federal state wanted to become one of the leading centres for biotechnology in Europe. He called for a proper discussion and dispassionate analysis. Schartau’s ministry was one of the sponsors of the conference, together with other organisations and companies.

His cabinet colleague, the Green environment minister Bärbel Höhn, on the other hand, insisted on attending a counter-event organised by Misereor, Greenpeace and other anti-GM groups. In her view the sowing of GM plants amounts to a deliberate release trial which has got out of control. Agro-biotechnology increases the dependence of farmers, she believes, and offers “no solution for world hunger”.

Höhn, who was not invited to the event as an official speaker, was not greeted as an ally by everyone. Some of the speakers, especially from the ranks of anti-globalisation activists from Attac, BUND-Jugend and local groups, accused her and the Green ministers in Berlin of “allowing the cultivation of genetically engineered plants”.

Protest as a means of social criticism.

With the Genetic Engineering Act “Künast has handed the land over to Monsanto and the other big businesses” raged Lothar Gothe, a grey-haired organic farmer from the Cologne region, the following day at the demonstration in front of the exhibition centre where the ABIC was being held. He did not balk at speaking of “the final victory for biotechnology” and “the final solution”, which the corporations, the EU and the World Trade Organisation were supposedly planning.

“People are having GM food forced upon them”, Maria Mies, emeritus professor at the Cologne University of Applied Sciences, called out to the fifty or so demonstrators. To her and the other protesters, every gene and every shred of DNA from a genetically modified plant released into nature represents an uncontrollable risk, even worse than nuclear technology. Every gene is also an expression of the domination of big businesses, which are pushing through genetic engineering against the will of consumers and farmers.

The activists in front of the exhibition centre hold the red-green coalition government responsible for lifting the ban on genetic engineering. They pay little heed to the fact that the extensive coexistence rules in the red-green Genetic Engineering Act have virtually put a stop to the use of agro-genetic engineering.

A cordon of safety controls keeps the protest and ABIC conference delegates apart. Inside the exhibition halls the rhetoric outside is dismissed with baffled head shaking. Their words seem too confused, irrational and radical to be taken seriously. For the visitors inside it goes without saying that if genetically modified plants are authorised, then they are scientifically proven to be safe. The outcrossing of a gene from a GM plant is a normal process which does not alarm anybody here.

Nevertheless, many of the Europeans know from experience that radical criticism such as can be heard in front of the exhibition centre strikes a chord with people: in the eyes of many consumers, the ‘gene’ carries an uncertain risk which they prefer to avoid to be ‘on the safe side’.

Europe: a delicate balancing act. The European biotechnology strategy, which was outlined by Manuel Hallen from the European Commission at the ABIC, has to attempt a delicate balancing act: on the one hand Europe wants to exploit the huge scientific and economic potential of agro-biotechnology, while on the other hand ethical concerns need to be taken into account. In Hallen’s view, sharing information and dialogue with society are not just for show; they are key components of EU strategy.

To many guests from the USA and Canada, such as Michael Phillips from BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization), this may look like capitulation in the face of ‘green activists’. In the USA, the legislative framework is based solely on rational, scientific principles. Scientists and government authorities enjoy a high degree of trust. Freedom of choice, labelling, coexistence and the precautionary principle, which are now central to European legislation, are simply political concessions to an irrational public in the view of many non-European ABIC delegates.

The balanced EU biotechnology strategy is under attack from two sides: the North Americans and the scientific and trade-orientated principles of the WTO on one hand, and on the other a society which, in many member states, is characterised by a deep mistrust of green genetic engineering and which will not allow itself to be won over by rational arguments.

There will be no quick and easy solutions in Europe, and as anticipated, the ABIC has had little impact in this respect.