A FORMER GERMAN JOURNALIST DIRECTS A GLOBAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AS IT TURNS ITS SIGHTS ON NORTH AMERICA
The Ottawa Citizen | January 5, 2000 | Pauline Tam
The phone call from the Canadian Embassy in London came last summer, putting Garry Moore on high alert: Greenpeace was, according to this story, about to start a food fight in Canada. It was July and Mr. Moore, a senior trade adviser for the federal government, was told that the environmental group was mobilizing Canadian activists for a fall campaign to fight genetically modified foods. The story says that in Britain, Greenpeace had orchestrated a successful consumer revolt that forced major companies to pull baby food and countless genetically engineered groceries from store shelves. The goal of its Canadian campaign would be similar: to stir up public opinion against genetically modified food and to pick corporate targets.
The story says that Mr. Moore wasn't worried and he was sure the campaign would not provoke the same kind of widespread panic in this country. After all, Britons had more to fear from their food-safety system because of recent health disasters such as the mad-cow disease scare. Canadians enjoyed more faith in their food regulators. What's more, Mr. Moore didn't consider Greenpeace a credible opponent of biotechnology. "Some of these activists really believe in these concerns," he told a gathering of European biotech executives last fall. "Some are just out to make money."
Benny Haerlin roars with laughter when he hears such claims. His is no household name in Canada, but among environmentalists, the Berlin-based Greenpeace executive is credited with directing a campaign in western Europe that has left the food and biotech industry scared and scrambling to reformulate thousands of products containing genetically modified ingredients.
It isn't the first time Mr. Haerlin has heard Greenpeace accused of using an emotionally loaded issue for financial profit. His strongest critics biotech executives parliamentarian to the top executive of a multinational enterprise, who oversees a multimillion-dollar campaign on behalf of the global protest industry. Such attacks suggest to Mr. Haerlin that governments and the corporate backers of genetically engineered foods consider Greenpeace a formidable opponent.
Haerlin was quoted as saying, "There are a few specialists inside the biotech industry who have come up with the smart idea of trying to depict Greenpeace as somehow being like them work. Nobody believes them."
As Greenpeace steps up its fight against genetically modified foods in Canada and the United States, Mr. Haerlin continues to play a key role in shaping the campaign. From his Berlin office, he runs daily Internet strategy sessions with an international network of 30 campaigners as they take on multinational corporations. He travels regularly, visiting Greenpeace offices around the world. And he speaks at high-level conferences where he meets with government officials and biotech executives.
The story says that last year, Mr. Haerlin's office at Greenpeace International spent $250,000 U.S. to fight genetically modified foods and the amount is expected to grow this year. The office accepts no corporate donations, relying instead on contributions from its regional chapters. Each regional office is responsible, in turn, for raising additional money for its own campaign. In Canada, Greenpeace has, the story says, budgeted $300,000. Despite his own increasing profile, Mr. Haerlin insists his clout in the movement is greatly exaggerated. He is anxious, for example, to dispel the notion that Greenpeace is "exporting" its European campaign to the rest of the world. Or that he is personally calling the shots from behind the scenes. Nonetheless, the movement in Canada has taken on many of the same dimensions as the European one before it.
Since the battle began in September, activists have targeted large grocery chains like Loblaw, calling for the company to get rid of genetically modified ingredients in its own lines of processed foods. They have also awakened once-indifferent consumers to the environmental risks of releasing rogue genes into the wild. At least one manufacturer, McCain Foods of New Brunswick, attributed consumer pressure to its decision to stop buying genetically engineered potatoes. Rather like the European script, Canadian activists are now pressuring the federal government to pass laws that would require the food industry to label any product containing genetically modified ingredients. And they are taking aim at the regulatory system that approves such foods. "Our system is basically on trial right now," Mr. Moore, the federal trade official, acknowledged.
To Mr. Haerlin, the outcome of the campaign will determine the future of global food production. But it is a future, he is careful to point out, the story says, that makes room for the responsible use of plant genetics. For example, he sees great benefits for plant breeders as scientists decipher more and more of a plant's genetic code. That information could be used, not to "cut and paste" genes from other plants, animals or bacteria directly into a plant, but to improve conventional breeding techniques, he explains.
The careful listener will catch other fine points to Mr. Haerlin's arguments. For one thing, he's not opposed to all forms of genetic engineering (he has no problems with the use of genetically tailored bacteria in medicine because the engineered organisms are contained in tanks). But genetically modified crops are another matter: "Once you release them into the environment, you will have effects that you did not anticipate." He also leaves some distance between Greenpeace and other groups arguing that genetically modified foods pose unknown hazards to human health.
Haerlin was quoted as saying, "We never claimed that you could get sick from eating GMOs (genetically modified organisms). There is no proof of that and we're not into scaremongering. Certainly, there are additional risks and we do believe that those risks have not been properly assessed as it relates to human health. But we are not saying it is an immediate danger to eat this."
What's more, Mr. Haerlin argues, genetically engineered crops have failed to live up to their early promise. In particular, he says, the claim that genetically modified crops will benefit the environment by reducing the need for crop chemicals has remained just that: a claim.
From what Mr. Haerlin has seen, making genetically engineered plants that resist pesticides or herbicides actually increases a farmer's dependence on those chemicals. The arguments are those of a seasoned critic who has followed the issue for more than a decade. His involvement began in 1986 during a chance meeting with the U.S. activist Jeremy Rifkin.
