GM Commercialisation: Good or Bad? Insights from the Global Anti-GM Movement

Director of the Berlin office of the Future Agriculture Foundation. Since becoming a Member of the European Parliament for Germany’s Green Party in the 1980s, Benny has been closely following the GM crop issue. He formerly served as Director of Greenpeace’s Berlin office, where he coordinated the international campaign on GM technologies, authored numerous articles, curated publications, and organised international conferences. He founded the education programme for the “Global 2000 Square Metres” project and the “Save Our Seeds” initiative, and serves on the International Future Food Committee.

Foodthink: How did you first become interested in GMO technology?

BH: That goes back to the 1980s. I was in my early twenties and working as an environmental activist. In 1984, I became an MEP for the German Green Party, a role I held for five years. During that time, I travelled to the United States, where I first heard about genetic modification.

In 1986, researchers in California developed a bacterial spray to help strawberries withstand frost. Its active ingredient was a strain of Pseudomonas syringae engineered with a specific gene segment removed. That segment normally produces a protein that encourages ice formation; without it, frost does not form as readily.

It was completely new territory for me. My background is in philosophy and psychology, not agricultural or biological sciences, but I felt this technology was significant enough to warrant widespread public discussion, rather than being left solely to experts in the lab. My instinct told me that humans do not need to teach nature how to do its job, and we certainly ought not to intervene in living organisms at the DNA level—including ourselves.

I believed we needed to properly understand the complexity of what we were meddling with. GM technology was somewhat like fiddling with a computer’s hardware wiring without understanding the software programmes running on it. Yes, you will get some sort of reaction, but you cannot predict exactly what that reaction will be. That is not a scientific approach.

Over thirty years later, I have found that the confidence people placed in GMO technology during the 1980s has completely evaporated. The more we learn, the less tenable some of the assumptions made by scientists at the time appear to be. In reality, the picture has proven to be far more complex.

Take, for example, the seed microbiome. Although 95 per cent of the seed microbiome (also referred to as the seed microbial community) is inherited by the plant itself, the vast majority of a plant’s microbes actually originate from its surrounding environment. The concept that foreign microbes outnumber native ones both on and inside a plant is a relatively recent development.

BH: As I delved deeper into genetic engineering, I realised it was being used to create herbicide-resistant crops. With the widespread adoption of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM soybeans and maize, 120 million hectares of land globally are now being treated with glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup. Alongside herbicide-tolerant varieties, there is also GM cotton engineered to resist the cotton bollworm.

While Bt cotton was initially a success, it has now descended into another pesticide treadmill—target insects develop resistance to it, and in areas where the toxin remains effective, secondary pests (such as sap-sucking insects) move in to fill the vacant ecological niches left behind, triggering new outbreaks. This is no genuine solution.

BH: The ideology behind genetic engineering is profoundly arrogant. Its core premise is that nature should adapt to our supposedly “advanced” capitalist system, which is actually quite primitive. We thought we could learn a great deal from nature’s efficiency, but instead, we’ve landed ourselves in deep trouble.

Foodthink: What policy changes did you champion in the European Parliament after returning from the US?

BH: I helped the European Parliament pass Directive 90/220/EEC, the Directive concerning the deliberate release of genetically modified crops into the environment (hereafter referred to as the Directive), which established the world’s first legal framework for genetic modification. Over time, this document became a key reference for EU and member state legislation on the subject, and I became a recognised expert on genetic engineering. It was quite easy back then, as hardly anyone had even heard of it. (Laughs)

In 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell, I left the Parliament and founded a newspaper in Berlin. Two years later, I joined Greenpeace and began working in China. Initially, we campaigned for CFC-free refrigerators (Greenfreeze), advising the industry to replace Freon with refrigerants such as propane and butane to reduce harm to the ozone layer.

In 1996, I launched a global advocacy campaign against genetic engineering at Greenpeace. I served as an international coordinator for six years, a role that naturally included work in China. The Chinese government never interfered with our activities on this issue. In fact, they showed a keen interest in the critical perspectives we presented. I suspect this was partly because Monsanto held a tight grip on the core technologies at the time. The landscape has shifted since then. Following Sinochem’s acquisition of Syngenta in 2016, China has become the world’s leading nation in genetic engineering.

I believe our first wave of advocacy (from the late 1990s to the early 2000s) was quite successful, largely because we laid such a strong foundation in the 1980s. In Europe, the Directive mandated specific legislative oversight for genetic engineering and required businesses to clearly label genetically modified products. With that transparency, at least in Europe, consumers simply did not buy GM products. China follows a similar principle: the law requires that any food containing genetically modified ingredients must be labelled.

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

BH: Our overarching strategy was straightforward: first, never release GMO crops that cannot be recalled. Second, leave the decision to the people of each country and region. One could say that consumers are our strongest allies, which remains the defining characteristic of this advocacy movement. We secured varying levels of success, though our efforts in the United States made virtually no headway.

Interestingly, Greenpeace’s US office decided against campaigning for mandatory labelling of GM crops, aiming instead for an outright ban on GM products reaching the shelves. They viewed pushing for mandatory labels as tantamount to compromise. To me, this serves as a strategic warning: taking an overly hardline stance risks total defeat. By contrast, our advocacy in Europe proved highly successful. The push for mandatory labelling of GM crops has since been extended to the EU’s recent regulatory framework for CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited crops. I hope we can achieve success this time as well.

BH: The argument put forward by those advocating for deregulation is that gene-edited crops are fundamentally no different from conventionally bred varieties. From a scientific standpoint, however, this is complete nonsense. In 2019, testing by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that gene-edited polled cattle, brought into production in 2016, inadvertently carried two new genes conferring antibiotic resistance. We must therefore assess each case individually to understand what risks gene editing actually poses, and which risk assessment protocols can never be bypassed.

Mandatory labelling of gene-edited crops serves not only to safeguard consumers’ right to know, but also functions as a traceability mechanism and a fallback. Should something go wrong, it at least leaves us with the possibility of a product recall. To be clear once again, I am not opposed to the technology itself. But thus far, every gene engineering initiative I have come across has been profoundly short-sighted, lacking a more holistic, long-term perspective.

Furthermore, by patenting genes and crop traits, gene engineering has privatised the technology, completely upending the commercial model of conventional breeding. As climate change intensifies and the need for improved seeds becomes ever more pressing, greater stakeholder participation is vital. If crop improvement technologies remain monopolised by a handful of corporations, are we not effectively painting ourselves into a corner?

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

BH: SOS was originally established to prevent outcrossing in GM crops (cross-pollination between different genotypes, here referring to GM and non-GM plants).

The EU’s legal framework only mandates labelling for GM products. Where the GM component is EU-approved, any product found to contain 0.9% GM material must carry a GM label. Enforcing a zero-contamination standard would drastically increase testing costs. In this respect, I do believe legislation must remain practically enforceable.

Seeds, however, are a completely different matter, as they are propagation material. Multiplied over a few generations, even minimal contamination can lead to catastrophic outcomes. At the time, we witnessed GM maize seeds inadvertently mixing with conventional seed supplies. The European Commission initially sought to uphold the 0.9% threshold, but through our campaign we successfully maintained the “zero contamination for seeds” baseline: should GM material be detected in non-GM seed, it must be withdrawn from the market.

Foodthink: How do you view the distinct roles of policy advocacy and mobilising public participation within the movement?

BH: They are equally important. In a democratic society, if the majority oppose something, there is sufficient power to drive changes in the legal framework. Legislation is typically the endpoint of public debate and contention.

Interestingly, within this movement, we have recognised the power of corporations. As citizens, we require legal safeguards. At the same time, we are all consumers who need safe products. Consequently, we have also sought to persuade supermarkets and major food brands to guarantee they will not stock GM products, regardless of what the law permits.

A supermarket’s core business is understanding customer demands. For them, this is not merely a political issue, but a commercial one. At the time, many supermarket chains consulted “focus groups” and target consumers on their views regarding GM foods. They realised that if they stocked GM products, a significant portion of their customer base would turn to competitors.In reality, losing just 5% of a company’s customers to elsewhere is catastrophic.Thus, they also supported mandatory labelling, as it ensured a level playing field.

Politicians, meanwhile, tend to follow corporate leads. Although, at the outset of the campaign, journalists and politicians were the two groups most supportive of genetic engineering.

Foodthink: If supermarkets can be turned into allies, then what force is most opposed to this movement? The seed companies developing GM crops?

BH: Yes. As a rule, advocacy campaigns need to propose alternatives or viable exit strategies. But we cannot simply turn to Monsanto and ask, “Why don’t you just stick to organic and conventional breeding?” That is fundamentally not on the table for them. They are invested in pesticides, GMOs, and patenting plants.

Where there is no genuine exit strategy, all we can really say is “get out.” In a sense, they have indeed been sidelined. In 2018, Bayer acquired Monsanto for $63 billion, inheriting a whole raft of lawsuits and legal disputes, which consequently tarnished their own standing.

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

BH: There have been plenty. For example, early on in the campaign, I was deeply encouraged when I realised there was real work to be done and that we could advance our advocacy with solid evidence and sound reasoning.

Then there was October 2003, when we won the ‘labelling battle’—a truly decisive historical moment. The European Parliament adopted Regulation 1803/2003, stipulating that all GM products placed on the market must carry a label. Furthermore, the majority of both the European Commission and Parliament held the view that any product containing ingredients of GM origin must be labelled, even if those ingredients themselves are undetectable and untraceable. Take oil, for instance. It can be extensively refined, and oil processed from GM crops may yield no detectable DNA (because it contains neither protein nor water).

This provision actually runs counter to intuition. As a general rule, labelling presupposes that the substance in question is detectable within the product. Yet the EU placed the onus on businesses to prove that no GM crops had been used during production.

BH: Speaking of which, back in 1997 we hung a large banner outside Unilever’s headquarters in the Netherlands to protest their “Rama” brand margarine, which contained GM soybean oil. Unilever then invited me in to discuss the issue. They put the Rama margarine on the table and offered me some bread to try it with. I turned it down—I certainly wasn’t going to eat it right there! (Laughs) They told me they had already removed the GM soybean oil and replaced it with rapeseed oil. It took just two short weeks from our protest to Unilever changing the formula, which was incredibly inspiring.

The instinctive ethical response of ordinary Europeans to GM technology has also been quite surprising. During the debate on genetic engineering, I always tried to explain the technology’s risks. But I realised that people simply weren’t interested in that narrative. They just fundamentally believe we shouldn’t be tampering with DNA.

Foodthink: I’d like to circle back to the case of GM Golden Rice. How did you get involved in that?

BH: This case is particularly unique because Golden Rice claims its primary aim is to eliminate malnutrition. In 1999, I travelled to Zurich, Switzerland, to meet Mr Ingo Potrykus, one of its developers. He had invited me, and we spent two days in discussion. He was convinced he was doing the right thing and that his work deserved Greenpeace’s backing. But I was direct with him: Golden Rice is not the most promising strategy for combating vitamin A deficiency, and its effects on the environment and public health are simply unknown.

We also held a press conference at a major GM biotechnology conference. To treat vitamin A deficiency effectively, a person would need to consume nine kilograms of Golden Rice every day. So we bought nine kilograms of ordinary rice and slapped it squarely onto the table—obviously, no one could possibly eat that much in a single day. Potrykus was there, and he conceded we were right. He’s probably still holding a grudge against me to this day.

BH: Yet in 2000, he was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year. I had never seen such effusive praise before. This technology, touted as a boon for the impoverished, has not helped a single child anywhere in the world. In a sense, we lost the ‘battle of narratives’. Most people who encounter this rhetoric are likely to conclude that anti-GMO campaigners would rather see children perish than relinquish their dogmatism.

If we truly had children’s best interests at heart, we would ensure they obtain sufficient vitamin A through their diets, such as by consuming more carrots and sweet potatoes. We could also simply distribute vitamin A supplements, rather than resorting to genetic engineering to produce β-carotene-rich rice. The body requires adequate dietary fat to convert β-carotene into vitamin A, and both storage and cooking accelerate the depletion of β-carotene in Golden Rice.

Why not advocate for root crops like sweet potatoes and carrots instead? No one actually pursues this, do they? Because they have no genuine interest in advancing the welfare of the poor; they merely want to craft a compelling story.

Foodthink: Building on the advocacy campaign initiated by Greenpeace,the farmers’ and scientists’ network MASIPAG emerged as a pioneer of the anti-GMO movement in the Philippines.Which other civil society organisations in Europe and North America are still actively engaged on this issue?

BH: Quite a few. Take the international non-profit Friends of the Earth, for example, along with all organic farming organisations – after all, organic certification standards strictly prohibit the use of GM seeds. You could say they form the two main pillars of the movement today.

BH: There are also smaller consumer groups that may not oppose GM crops outright, but instead advocate for mandatory labelling and transparency. Additionally, there are groups of critically-minded scientists who consistently point out that the rhetoric surrounding GM technology is not scientifically sound.

GM crops are also a vital issue for farmers. Many smallholder farming organisations, alongside large-scale farming groups and mainstream industrial agriculture associations, oppose the commercialisation of GM crops. This stance is driven by both economic interests and opposition to the privatisation of seed patents. In India, the anti-GM movement has always been farmer-led rather than consumer-driven. The situation is remarkably similar in the Philippines and Latin America.

There are very few smallholder farmers left in Europe. In developed nations where agriculture has been industrialised, the anti-GM movement is primarily consumer-driven, and our alliances with farmers are not particularly tight. That said, whenever consumer demand shifts, farmers will adapt, often noting that they must simply follow the market. Moreover, organic farmers remain a formidable anti-GM force, regardless of location. Given the substantial size of China’s smallholder farming and consumer populations, I look forward to seeing the roles they will play in the future.

Foodthink: You have repeatedly raised concerns about the new gene-editing technology CRISPR/Cas9. In December 2023, the Chinese government not only approved 51 varieties of GM maize and soya, but also granted biosafety certificates for agricultural gene editing to four maize and soya varieties. The EU may also ease regulations on gene-edited crops. How do you view this trend?

BH: Scientists are once again claiming that CRISPR/Cas9 is fundamentally different from GMOs that introduce foreign genes. As I’ve said before, this simply isn’t scientifically sound.

What concerns me more recently is the combination of CRISPR/Cas9 technology with artificial intelligence. We’ve already seen how powerful ChatGPT is at learning and generating content, and AI models can now predict protein folding structures with remarkable accuracy. This doesn’t mean GPT truly understands DNA; it’s simply making statistical predictions.

The crux of the problem is that even though ChatGPT’s learning methods were originally programmed by humans, we still don’t understand how it arrives at a particular conclusion. It could eventually devolve into a scenario where scientists state a requirement, and the AI simply replies: this is the DNA you should synthesise.I see this as a new form of alienation. Intervening in and shaping living systems with only a partial understanding, I believe, is deeply dangerous. If we drop mandatory labelling for gene-edited crops, there will be zero chance of recalling products once problems actually emerge.

Foodthink:I really like the concept of ‘alienation’ you’ve introduced. So how can consumers break free from this alienation and increase our knowledge of food and agriculture? What advice do you have?

BH: Rather than focusing on ‘knowledge’, I’d say it’s about gaining ‘experience’. Numerous studies show that knowledge is fluid and not the decisive factor in human decision-making.

Today, due to over-sanitisation and declining overall nutrition, there are more children suffering from allergies and more who are afraid of nature. People need to experience the natural world firsthand and witness the wonders of life directly. That’s precisely what our ‘2,000 square metres’ initiative (2,000m², Weltacker) in Berlin aims to achieve.

2,000 square metres (roughly half an acre) is the figure we get by dividing the world’s total arable land by its population. From a standpoint of fairness and equity, each person can only rightfully claim the yield of 2,000 square metres of land. At our demonstration farm in Berlin, we cultivate today’s major global crops in plots that reflect this exact ratio.

BH: Understanding food and agriculture certainly involves knowledge, but what matters more is aesthetic experience. It’s not just about appreciating beauty; it’s about realising that the mysteries of Mother Earth far exceed our comprehension, and that we should approach them with reverence. No matter how precise the imagery on your screen may appear, it simply cannot compare with the raw 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 on the Agricultural Biodiversity Network at the Sino-German Agricultural Centre. Over the past year, 23 scientists, policymakers, farmers and campaigners from China and Germany have taken part in virtual and in-person exchanges on agricultural biodiversity, including reciprocal visits and workshops. Click to read the full article to explore the success stories, guidelines and practical insights compiled by network members.

The interview took place in Eberswalde, Germany, in June 2024.

We would like to thank the Sino-German Agricultural Centre, Farmers’ Seed Network and Lin An for their support in putting together this piece.

Reporting and writing: Zen

Editing: Wang Hao