VIDEO INTERVIEWS
BERNWARD GEIER
Bernward Geier is Director for International Relations at the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM - www.ifoam.org), which coordinates the international organic movement through 750 affiliated organisations in 100 countries. Its Acccreditation Programme works to harmonise international organic standards in partnership with 27 of the world's major organic certification bodies. Based in Germany, IFOAM hosts the annual Organic World Congress and publishes Ecology and Farming magazine.
TRANSCRIPT:
Why should we avoid the production of genetically modified food?
Well, GMOs for me are the ultimate attempt to manipulate nature instead of working with nature... In the long run, we cannot accept such a risk from our technology. We should learn the messages from pesticides, we should learn the messages from atomic energy, which all have proved that we will never be able to control these kinds of technologies. They don't allow us to make errors. Making errors is human. I want to be a human, I want to be able to make errors that can be fixed, that we can learn from. Genetic engineering will not give us this tolerance. And see how far it has already advanced! We have crossed human genes to bulls, we have crossed human genes to pigs with crippled pigs as the result, we have crossed human genes to fish, to carpfish, we have gone beyond any ethical and moral barrier. And the big difference between GM food and, let's say, pesticides in food, is that with pesticides, we still may discuss how long does it takes till they disappear, till they break down. But with GMOs the question is: once they spread out, who is going to call them back? Nobody! Nobody will call them back, we cannot get it back once the problem is out! And we cannot afford a GMO Chernobyl disaster. That would make the Chernobyl disaster actually a little environmental catastrophe, as big as that catastrophe was, if a GMO Chernobyl happens. And that's what the genetic engineering industry is asking us: where is the evidence of the danger? they ask for the Chernobyl, and that shows already how ridiculous the whole debate is. The most important thing to understand is that there no need for GMOs! I have not come across a serious argument why we need GMOs! We have the biodiversity, we have a whole range of food, we can grow enough food; we grow enough food actually to feed everybody in the world, we just must give people access to the food, and enable them to afford to grow their food – preferably – or buy their food. The only reason I come across again and again is to make a profit, and that should never be the reason for GMOs to take over the world!
Tony Blair, for example, was saying "we won't make a decision about GMOs until we do more tests about the health effects", meaning field tests. But the ecogical threat of genes escaping in the field is far greater than the health threat! What is your view of the ecological risks of GMOs?
The ecological risks are enormous, because we have cross-pollination! We have already the situation in Canada, where there is a lot of rape seed or canola grown for oil production, that GMOs are now all over Canada. You can't actually grow organic canola anymore because you're not able to keep your fields protected. And we have seen some evidence of the impact on insect life, the butterfly, the Monarch butterfly. So there is evidence. I don't accept the demand that we need more evidence to show that GMO is safe or not safe. I mean, all the pesticides have been tested to an enormous extent, and they all have been called "safe", all the "evidence" was that they are safe, and you know how many pesticides have been taken back because they are now banned! DDT is the most famous of them. Now we still find DDT residues, decades after it was used, in the penguins in the Arctic, and this should not be repeated with GMOs because then it's too late.
But again this is just one side of the argument. Why should we do all this testing? Why should all these resources go to develop a technology which we don't need, which is not user-friendly, which makes no sense except in trying to make profit. Even that promise is not delivered: Monsanto is in deep shareholder trouble because they have not reaped what they hoped to reap with going all the way, putting all their eggs in the basket of genetic engineering. So if this is apparent, there is no need for it, it does not benefit anybody, why should we make all these investments and put all these brains of bright researchers and scientists into this? I would rather see 10% of this money spent to develop sustainable alternatives to solve our problems that we still have in organic farming, for example in pest control. We would be in a much better world.
