GMO Commercialisation: Boon or Bane? Lessons from the Global Anti-GMO Movement

Head of the Berlin office of the Future Agriculture Foundation. Since serving as a Member of the European Parliament for the German Green Party in the 1980s, Benny has focused on the issue of GM crops. He was previously the Director of the Greenpeace Berlin office, where he coordinated the international Greenpeace campaign on genetic engineering, wrote numerous articles, curated publications, and organised international conferences. He is the founder of the educational project “Global 2000 Square Metres Plan” and the “Save Our Seeds” initiative, as well as a member of the International Future Food Commission.

Foodthink: How did you first become interested in genetic engineering technology?

BH: That was back in the 1980s. I was in my early twenties and an environmental activist. In 1984, I became a Member of the European Parliament, working for the German Green Party for five years. During this time, I visited the United States, where I first heard about genetic engineering.

In 1986, someone in California developed a bacterial agent to help strawberries resist frost. The main component was *Pseudomonas syringae* with a deleted gene segment. That gene segment normally produces a protein; without it, ice crystals do not form.

To me, this was completely unfamiliar territory. My academic background is in philosophy and psychology—I am not an agricultural or biological scientist—but I felt this technology was critical and should be subject to broad public discussion rather than being left solely to experts in laboratories. My intuition told me that humans do not need to teach nature how to work, and certainly should not interfere with living organisms, including ourselves, at the level of DNA.

I believe we need a deep understanding of the complexities we are interfering with. Genetic engineering is a bit like tinkering with computer hardware circuitry without understanding the software programmes. This will obviously produce certain effects, but you cannot be certain exactly what those effects will be. That is not a scientific approach.

More than 30 years later, I find that the confidence people had in genetic engineering in the 1980s has vanished without a trace. The more we learn, the harder it is to prove the ideas of certain scientists from that time correct; it turns out the situation is far more complex.

For example, although 95% of the seed microbiome is passed on to the plant itself, most plant microbes actually come from the surrounding environment. The idea that there are more foreign microbes inside a plant than its own is a relatively new concept.

BH: As I looked further into genetic engineering, I discovered it was being used to create herbicide-resistant crops. With the promotion of Monsanto’s GM Roundup-ready soy and maize, 120 million hectares of land globally are now using glyphosate herbicides, including Roundup. In addition to herbicide-resistant crops, there is also GM cotton resistant to the cotton bollworm.

GM cotton was indeed successful at first, but it has now evolved into another pesticide treadmill—insects killed by it develop resistance, and where the pesticides remain effective, other insects (such as sap-sucking insects) fill the ecological niche left by the killed pests, creating new infestations. This is not a real solution.

BH: The ideology of genetic engineering is profoundly arrogant; its core concept is to make nature adapt to our “advanced” capitalist system, which is incredibly primitive. We thought we could learn a great deal from nature’s efficiency, but in reality, we have landed ourselves in deep trouble.

Foodthink: After returning from the US, what policy changes did you push for in the European Parliament?

BH: I pushed the European Parliament to pass Directive 90/220/EEC, the “Council Directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms” (hereafter “the Directive”), which was the world’s first legal framework for GMOs. Later, this document became an important basis for GMO legislation in the EU and its member states, and I became an expert on genetic engineering issues. It was easy because, at the time, hardly anyone had heard of genetic engineering (laughs).

In 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell, I left Parliament and founded a newspaper in Berlin. Two years later, I joined Greenpeace and began working in China. Initially, we promoted the removal of CFCs from refrigerators in China (Greenfreeze), suggesting that the industry replace Freon with refrigerants such as propane and butane to reduce damage to the ozone layer.

In 1996, I launched a global genetic engineering advocacy campaign at Greenpeace and served as international coordinator for six years, which naturally included work in China. The Chinese government never interfered with our activities on this issue; they were very interested in critical opinions, perhaps because Monsanto held a tight grip on the core technology at the time. Things are different now; after ChemChina acquired Syngenta in 2016, China became the world’s largest genetic engineering nation.

I believe our first round of advocacy (from the late 1990s to the early 2000s) was quite successful because we got off to a good start in the 1980s. In Europe, the Directive stipulated that genetic engineering be subject to special legislative supervision and that traders must label GM products. Given this transparency, people in Europe, at least, would not buy GM products. The same applies to China, where the law requires food containing GM ingredients to be labelled.

Foodthink: Did you develop a global strategy at that time?

BH: Our overall strategy was: first, do not release GM crops that cannot be recalled. Second, let the people of each country and region decide for themselves. It can be said that consumers were our most powerful allies, which was the defining feature of this advocacy campaign. We achieved varying degrees of success, but our advocacy work in the US made almost no headway.

Interestingly, the Greenpeace US office decided at the time not to fight for mandatory labelling of GM crops because they wanted to ban GM products from shelves once and for all. They believed that fighting for mandatory labelling was equivalent to making a compromise. For me, this served as a strategic reminder: being too radical can lead to losing everything. In contrast, our advocacy in Europe was very successful, and the logic of demanding mandatory labelling for GM crops has extended to the EU’s recent regulation of CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited crops. I hope we can succeed this time as well.

BH: The talking points used by those in favour of deregulation are that gene-edited crops are fundamentally no different from conventionally bred crops. From a scientific perspective, however, this is absolute nonsense. In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered through testing that gene-edited hornless cattle, which had entered production in 2016, unexpectedly contained two new genes that made the cattle resistant to antibiotics. Therefore, we must continue to examine every case individually to determine exactly what risks gene editing brings and which risk assessment processes must never be bypassed.

Mandatory labelling for gene-edited crops is not only about protecting the consumer’s right to know, but also serves as a traceability mechanism and a safety net. Should a problem arise, we still have the possibility of recalling the products. To clarify once more, I am not opposed to the technology itself. However, thus far, every gene engineering attempt I have encountered has been extremely short-sighted, lacking a more holistic, long-term perspective.

Furthermore, gene engineering privatises this technology by applying for patents on genes and crop traits, completely overturning the commercial model of conventional breeding. As climate change intensifies, the need for improved seeds becomes increasingly urgent, and the more stakeholders involved, the better. If the technology for improvement is held by only a handful of companies, are we not simply boxing ourselves in?

Foodthink: Was this one of the reasons you launched the ‘Save Our Seeds’ (SOS) initiative in 2002?

BH: SOS was initially launched to prevent outcrossing in transgenic crops (hybridisation between two individuals with different genotypes; in this context, the hybridisation of transgenic and non-transgenic crops).

The EU legal framework only stipulates mandatory labelling for transgenic products. Provided the source of the transgenic components is approved by the EU, a product must be labelled as transgenic if it is found to contain 0.9% transgenic content. Demanding zero contamination would significantly increase testing costs. On this point, I believe it is necessary to ensure the law remains practical.

However, the situation with seeds is entirely different because seeds are propagation materials. After several generations of breeding, even a tiny amount of contamination can have unthinkable consequences. At the time, instances occurred where transgenic maize seeds were mixed into conventional seeds. The European Commission wanted to stick to the 0.9% threshold, but through our advocacy, we successfully held the line on ‘zero contamination’ for seeds: if any transgenic components are detected in non-transgenic seeds, they must be withdrawn from the market.

Foodthink: How do you view the respective roles of policy advocacy and public mobilisation within the movement?

BH: They are equally important. In a democratic society, when a majority oppose something, it creates the momentum needed to drive changes in the legal framework. Codifying a position into law is typically where public debate and controversy conclude.

Interestingly, we discovered the power of the corporate sector during this movement. As citizens, we require legal safeguards; as consumers, we require safe products. We therefore also sought to persuade supermarkets and major food brands to guarantee that they would not stock GMO products, regardless of whether the law permitted them.

A supermarket’s primary role is to understand customer demand. For them, this was not merely about politics; it was a matter of business. At the time, many retailers consulted focus groups and target customers regarding their views on GMOs. They realised that if they stocked GMO products, a significant number of customers would switch to their competitors. In reality, for a company to lose just 5% of its customers to a rival is catastrophic. Consequently, they also supported mandatory labelling, as this ensured fair competition.

Politicians, in turn, follow the lead of business. This is despite the fact that, during the early stages of the campaign, journalists and politicians were the two groups most supportive of genetic engineering.

Foodthink: If supermarkets could be turned into allies, who were the primary opponents of the movement? Was it the seed companies developing GMOs?

BH: Yes. Typically, advocacy campaigns need to propose alternative solutions or exit strategies. But we couldn’t exactly ask Monsanto, “Couldn’t you just stick to organic and conventional breeding?” For them, that simply wasn’t an option. They love pesticides, they love GMOs, and they love patenting plants.

When there is no genuine exit strategy, the only thing left to say is “get out”. In a sense, they did eventually leave the stage. In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto’s shares for $63 billion, inheriting a mountain of lawsuits and legal disputes, and their reputation suffered as a result.

Foodthink: Were there any particularly inspiring moments throughout the decade-long campaign?

BH: There always were. For example, in the early days of the movement, I felt very encouraged when I realised there was a viable path forward and that we could push our advocacy forward based on sound arguments.

Then there was October 2003, when we won the “battle for labelling”—another decisive historical moment. The European Parliament enacted Regulation (EC) No 1803/2003, which mandated that GMO products must be labelled on the shelf. Furthermore, the majority of the European Commission and Parliament agreed that any product containing ingredients derived from GMOs must be labelled, even if the ingredients themselves cannot be detected or traced. For instance, oil can be refined; refined oil made from GMO crops may not contain detectable DNA because it lacks proteins and water.

This regulation is actually counter-intuitive. Normally, if you are to label something, you need to be able to detect it in the product. However, the EU required traders to prove that GMO crops were not used during the production process.

BH: Oh, and in 1997, we hung a large protest banner outside the Unilever offices in the Netherlands because their “Rama” brand margarine contained GMO soybean oil. Unilever then invited me to discuss the issue. They placed some Rama margarine on the table and invited me to have some bread with it. I refused—I certainly couldn’t eat there! (laughs). They told me that it no longer contained GMO soybean oil; they had replaced the soybean oil in the recipe with rapeseed oil. It took only two weeks from our protest for Unilever to change their formula, which was incredibly encouraging.

I was also surprised by the simple ethical response of ordinary Europeans to GMO technology. In the debate over genetic engineering, I always tried to explain the risks of the technology. But I realised that people weren’t interested in that narrative at all. They simply believed that we should not interfere with DNA.

Foodthink: I would like to go back to the case of Golden Rice. How were you involved in that?

BH: This case was very peculiar because Golden Rice claimed that its primary purpose was to eliminate malnutrition. In 1999, I went to Zurich, Switzerland, to meet Mr Ingo Potrykus, the developer of Golden Rice. He had invited me, and we spoke for two days. He believed he was doing the right thing and that he should have Greenpeace’s support. But I told him bluntly that Golden Rice was not the most promising strategy for combating Vitamin A deficiency, and that we still didn’t know its impact on the environment and public health.

We also held a press conference at a major GMO biotechnology conference. To treat Vitamin A deficiency, people would have to consume 9kg of Golden Rice every day, so we piled 9kg of regular rice on the table; obviously, no one could eat that much in a single day. Potrykus was there, and he admitted we were right. I suspect he still hates me to this day.

BH：Yet in 2000, he was featured on the cover of Time magazine. I had never seen such glowing praise. This technology, which claimed to benefit the poor, has not helped a single child in the world. In a sense, we lost the ‘battle of narratives’. Most people reading this rhetoric would believe that anti-GMO activists would rather sacrifice children’s lives than abandon their dogmatism.

If we were truly concerned for the children, we should ensure they have enough Vitamin A in their diets, by eating more carrots and sweet potatoes, for example. We could also provide Vitamin A supplements directly, rather than engineering a beta-carotene-rich rice. Beta-carotene requires sufficient fats to be converted into Vitamin A in the human body, and both storage and cooking accelerate the loss of beta-carotene in Golden Rice.

Why not promote root crops like sweet potatoes and carrots? No one does that, do they? Because they have no real interest in the well-being of the poor; they just want to tell a good story.

Foodthink: Building on the advocacy of Greenpeace,the farmers’ and scientists’ organisation MASIPAG became the vanguard of the anti-GMO movement in the Philippines. Which civil society organisations in Europe and North America are still pursuing this issue?

BH: Quite a few. For example, the international non-profit Friends of the Earth, as well as all organic organisations—because organic standards prohibit the use of GMO seeds. You could say they are the two main pillars of today’s movement.

BH: There are also some small consumer organisations; they might not be opposed to GMOs themselves, but they support mandatory labelling and information transparency. Then there are groups of critical scientists who have always emphasised that the rhetoric surrounding GMOs is not scientifically sound.

GMO crops are also a very important issue for farmers. Many smallholder organisations, and even large-scale farm organisations and mainstream industrial farming groups, oppose the promotion of GMO crops. This is due to both economic interests and opposition to the privatisation of seed ownership. In India, the anti-GMO movement has always been led by farmers rather than consumers. The situation in the Philippines and Latin America is very similar.

There are not many smallholders left in Europe. In developed countries where agriculture has already become industrialised, the anti-GMO movement is primarily driven by consumers, and our alliance with farmers is not very tight. But as long as consumers have demands, farmers will say, “I have to follow the market.” Additionally, organic farmers everywhere are a powerful force against GMOs. China has enormous populations of both smallholders and consumers, and I look forward to seeing what roles they will play in the future.

Foodthink: You have expressed concern on several occasions regarding the new gene-editing technology CRISPR/Cas9. In December 2023, the Chinese government not only approved 51 genetically modified maize and soybean varieties but also granted agricultural gene-editing biosafety certificates for four maize and soybean varieties. The European Union may also relax its regulations on gene-edited crops. How do you view this trend?

BH: Scientists are once again claiming that CRISPR/Cas9 is entirely different from GMOs, which involve the introduction of foreign genes. As I have said before, this is simply not scientific.

What concerns me more recently is the integration of CRISPR/Cas9 technology with artificial intelligence. We have already seen the power of ChatGPT’s ability to learn and express; AI models can now predict protein folding structures with extreme precision. This does not mean that GPT actually “understands” DNA; it is simply making predictions from a statistical perspective.

The greatest problem is that even if ChatGPT’s learning method was initially programmed by humans, we still do not understand how it arrives at a particular conclusion. Ultimately, this could evolve into a scenario where scientists specify a requirement, and the AI tells them, “This is the DNA you should synthesise.” I believe this is a new form of alienation. To intervene in and influence life systems based on a superficial understanding is, in my view, dangerous. If we no longer require mandatory labelling for gene-edited crops, the possibility of recalling products once a problem is actually discovered will be zero.

Foodthink: I really like your concept of “alienation”. How can consumers escape this alienation and increase our knowledge of food and agriculture? What suggestions do you have?

BH: It is less about increasing “knowledge” and more about gaining “experience”. Much research indicates that knowledge systems are volatile and are not the decisive factor influencing human decision-making.

Nowadays, due to over-sanitisation and a general decline in nutritional levels, more children are suffering from allergies, and more children are afraid of nature. People should experience nature and feel the miracle of life directly. The “2000 Square Metre” project (2000m², Weltacker) that we launched in Berlin serves this exact purpose.

2000 square metres is the figure we get by dividing the global arable land area by the total population. From a standpoint of fairness and justice, each of us is entitled to the produce of only 2000 square metres of land. On our demonstration farm in Berlin, we grow the world’s primary crops in proportion to this.

BH: Understanding food and agriculture certainly involves knowledge, but more importantly, it involves an aesthetic experience. People should not only perceive beauty but also recognise that the mysteries of Mother Earth far exceed our understanding; we should maintain a sense of awe. No matter how precise something looks on a screen, it cannot compare to the power of nature.

References

https://grain.org/fr/article/349-benny-haerlin-sos-save-our-seeds

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/99e75d4f-9c51-42a0-a255-fb184f571ac1/content

https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/gmo-legislation_en

https://history.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/genetic-engineering/

https://theecologist.org/2019/aug/21/antibiotic-resistance-gene-edited-cattle

https://www.arc2020.eu/new-genetic-engineering-small-cause-big-effect/

https://media.greenpeace.org/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult_VPage&STID=27MZIFLT4QH0

https://grain.org/en/article/267-sprouting-up-grains-of-delusion-golden-rice

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/03/19/glyphosate-contamination-global-hotspots-in-world-first-map.html

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31254345/

Recent Changes in the Global Seed Industry and Digital Agriculture Industries

Benny Haerlin is also an expert with the Agrobiodiversity Network of the Sino-German Agricultural Centre. Over the past year, 23 scientists, policymakers, farmers, and activists from China and Germany have engaged in online and offline exchanges, including mutual visits and workshops, on the issue of agricultural biodiversity. Click to read the original article for a summary of success stories, guidance manuals, and experience shared by the network members.

Interviewed in June 2024 in Eberswalde, Germany

With thanks to the Sino-German Agricultural Centre, the Farmer’s Seed Network, and Lin An for their support of this article

Written by: Zeen

Edited by: Wang Hao