Personal Report by Steven Desanghere

Science & Risk communication on GM crops8 december 2011

Het Pand, Universiteit Gent

Program:

Speeches by Prof Marc Van Montagu (chair IPBO, Ghent University), Klaus Ammann (PRRI), Godelieve Gheysen (UG) and Greet Riebbels (ILVO), Reinhilde Schoonjans (EFSA), Nevena Alexandrova (FAO), Sebastian Olenyi (TU Delft), Frank Burnet.

The organisers were first Flemish Government, University of Ghent and PRRI (http://www.pubresreg.org/) but this pro gmo lobbygroup was removed from the invitation after some people from the Field Liberation Movement showed interest.

All the speakers in the morning, have been audiotaped. These tapes can be obtained on request.

Prof Marc Van Montagu (pioneer of biotech, IPBO Ghent, University of Ghent, member of PRRI):

Van Montagu was his old self. Some quotes:– until the eighties, there was no problem with open field trials– there are NO dangers about gmo's– regulation is bad for progress of science and agriculture– what can scientists do about this? – We have to know about agriculture, if we talk to society.– Very often we are not accepted in society, cfr Galileo vs public (saved by the pope)– as humans, we are hardwired for believe, after that we rationalize.

Klaus Ammann (PRRI): “Urban Myths on Green Biotechnology. Proposals for Succesful Discourses.”

This guy is quite notorious. A real zealot for biotech. Good with words, smart, but quite sleazy looking. Apparently, not that much biotechies like him, because of his lack of nuance, and maybe also because of the way he looks :-)

He describes himself als a former militant of Greenpeace, that changed his mind on gmo's in one day. He talked about some urban myths, like:

– “Nature is serene, stable, eternal. And we should touch it as little as possible”– “GE is fundamentally different from natural mutation”– “GE is opposed by major religions”– ...–

Some parts of his presentation can be found here: http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=543

During his speech, he referred to quite some papers, and had all kinds of one-liners to throw around. A real showbiz man. The papers however, seem to be part of the back bone of the 'greenwashing' discourse of the biotech industry, so worthwile to have a look at them.

Some quotes:– permaculture people are quilty of moral self licensing– nature is full of infinite causes that have never occured in experiments– there are more and more field destructions! And greenpeace is involved in some violent

actions. – Germany is the Eco-Vatican: 61 percent trusts Greenpeace, and they are supported by

Merkel, Shell, Cardinal Lehmann– “help fundamentalists, donate brain”– there are a lot of creationists among the opponents– natural mutation and transgenesis are identical on the molecular level– 70 percent of food production uses radiation mutation: this is dangerous– festuca ovina is a natural gmo– we are armed only with peer reviewed science– a small rant against the 'climate change maffia' (!)– organic farmers should use GMO's (see paper listed)– Amish farmers adopted gmo's after 2,5 hours of talking with Ammann– organic farming cannot feed the world (check book Popov)

– the e.coli outbreak was the fault of organic farming: 60 people killed by organic farming, and 0 by gmo's

– the World Halal Forum supports gmo's– In Switzerland we will use the durph-potatoes as a big argument against the 2,5 year

moratorium against gmo's!

Some papers he referred to:– “Public understanding of biotechnology in New Zealand..”

(http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/Documents/613_RR266LH_s2662.pdf)– “Moral self licensing” (http://dtserv2.compsy.uni-

jena.de/ws2011/sozpsy_uj/84721718/content.nsf/Pages/931987FC0DCF8959C125793C002C2CA5/$FILE/Merritt%20Effron%20Monin%20moral%20self-licensing.pdf)

– “Opposition to transgenic technologies: ...” (http://www.whybiotech.com/resources/tps/Herring2008Nature.pdf)

– “In defense of generalised darwinism” (https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/5447/1/902874.pdf)

– Roots, strategies and prospects of functional genomics (http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/oct102002/826.pdf)

– evaluation report EPEC Sanco on gmo's (http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/docs/gmo_cultivation_report_en.pdf)

– “Why organic farmers should use transgenic crops” (Klaus Ammann) (http://www.ask-force.org/web/NewBiotech/Ammann-Integrated-Farming-Organic-2008.publ.pdf)

– Boek “Tomorrow's Table” (Ronald, Adamchak) (http://indica.ucdavis.edu/publication/tomorrows-table-organic-farming-genetics-and-the-future-of-food)

– Boek “Is it organic?” (Mascha Popov) (http://www.isitorganic.ca/)– Powerpoint “Sprout Break” about EHEC (http://www.ask-force.org/web/Escherichia/EHEC-

Sproutbreak-Ammann-20110622.pdf)–

Godelieve Gheysen & Greet Riebbels: The case of the gmo potato field trial in Flanders

Here we heard Greet Riebbels literally saying that one of the goals of the potato field, was the acceptance of gmo field trials in Belgium. Her presentation of the communication goals of the field trial, can be revealing for some.Greet Riebbels outed herself as quite an ambitious pro gmo communication strategist.Here is some of the information that was shared:

The initial communication goals for the potato field were:– information: solving a problem in Flanders' agriculture– positive public judgment about sustainability– attention for GMO technology in gernetal– acceptance of GMO field trials

How?– pro active media strategy– creating events (like visits for stakeholders)

But the Field Liberation Movement changed the communication plan (!)Pictures of the fences made the plan into a defensive message.“Our message was abducted”The use of the big banner saying “Here are the potatoes of the future growing” was a mistake. It was a statement instead of a question.(then followed a series of pictures of the Big Potato Swap)The Potato Swap was spectacular. Pictures became icons. Strong footage of violence.There was a roller coaster of communication.

The outcome:– wider range of topics than planned– more public debate & war of opinion– more channels (international, social), from pro-active to re-active

The debate was widened:– dismissal of Barbara Van Dyck at University of Louvain– fences, security, police– freedom of speech & action & research– financial profit for whom?– Judicial follow up – dependance agriculture from economic groups– ...

Lack of knowledge (pol, publ) generates false convictionThe public doesn't know about present professional agro systems, breeding techniques, characteristics of species fertility, patents in scientific development, autorisation procedure, market introduction, crop protection, health assesment.

Emotions should not be underestimated. There is fear, concerns about human health, exploitation of poor farmers, biodiversity, sustainable organic farming, respect for nature, naive or greedy research.

There is a problem with vocabulary/perception. For instance: Genetically MODIFIED organism, risk means danger, high tech, biomarkers/detector genes, cisgene/transgene, contamination.

Some protest is seen as positive: peaceful, legitimate, non violent, seeking, conscious, worrying.Some protest is negative: ignorant, scum, destruction, demolish private property

Analysis of target groups and their content needs!For politicians, ngo's, farmers, citizens/consumersIn the European society, there is a suspicion against novelty (it's fashionable), there are GMO free regions, there is no urgent need for gmo, there are concerns about food security.

There are 5 strong baselines here:– the potato is a good story– robust plants help to respect the soil– gm crops are common: no frankenstein (visualise: just one gene difference)– GE is more precise then rough breeding techniques– new research topics: yield & quality (visualise!)

Strategy: more dialogue, questions, visits, visual attraction, teaching, vulgarising, explaining procedures. Repetition. A FAQ website?Thanks to FLM, there was a good agenda setting: government, students, BASF & WUR, international gm expert, no barnum budget, extended press relations, ...People like Lieve Gheysen are good in debates because of the emotions. (says Riebbels)

Some extra quotes:– The goals of the potato field trial were threefold: testing / development for Belgian use /

communication (Gheysen)– there was a lot of damage on 29 May 2011 (Gheysen)– there is a difference between a citizen and a consumer (Riebbels)– zero risk does not exist

Reinhilde Schoonjans : EFSA Science and Risk communication

She talked about the relationship between:– risk assesment (science based)– risk management (policy based)– risk communication

Besides some of the slides, we recall that there is a high level of consumer engagement with the isue of gmo's (positive, negative and neutral). GMO's create the biggest buzz for EFSA related issues. Context is necessary! Safety, environment and innovation. NGO's should participate more!

Underneath are a few of the more interesting power point slides she presented:

Nevena Alexandrova (FAO Budapest): Agricultural science and risk communication

This talk was full of pro GMO support, from the perspective of the necessity of feeding the world. She made it sound that her discourse was in total line with FAO thinking about biotech.

She talked about facts versus perceptions, and about the defining of 'risk'. There are all kinds of risks that we take: voluntary, familiar, controllable, fair, detectable, ...She talked about risk assesment, the Carthagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Aarhus Convention and about the Agricultural Innovation System that supposedly is required to feed the world and secure economic growth.

Sebastian Olenyi (TU Delft): “Social media and web 2.O”

Here we got an truelly interesting discourse on how to use social media and the web to get your message through. Also useful for ngo's and activists...

Some quotes:– Facebook users spend 37 minutes per day on FB– Get involved in online discussions!– A succesful campaign of Greenpeace was the “Nestlé Killer” campaign

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7SZyidY7mQ)– Listen to the buzz on the net– engage all your workers online (not only the webmaster), but with training– be real – faces work – be respectful (don't lie) – have fun with it– Greenpeace has more Facebook fans than Monsanto, BASF, ... combined– Wikipedia: 90% believes it, 1% produces it– the most trusted sources are peers– people like positive stuff (not negative)– it's better to talk about 'food security', 'farmers', 'hunger' than about gmo's (see slide)– BASF Agro are big players on Youtube, they go viral sometimes

(http://www.youtube.com/user/BASFAgro)– If you google 'monsanto', you'll find a lot of bad online news– A top facebook status update on GM recently, was a small action “stop monsanto in nepal”– The true concept of Golden rice is still being beaten by one powerful wrong image,

produced by Greenpeace.

Frank Burnet : Communication training

The content of his slides and thoughts can be found on http://frankburnet.comSome papers and presentations from him can be found on http://frankburnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/taking-science-to-people-doc1.pdf, http://frankburnet.com/taking-science-to-people/ (summary), http://frankburnet.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/why-and-how-to-communicate-your-research1.pdf, http://frankburnet.com/why-and-how-to-communicate-your-research/ , He also referred to http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/evaluationguide.pdf

He actually made the afternoon sessions quite interesting and interactive.

Some do's and don'ts:– don't set out to convert people to your point of view. Don't insult people in the audience– do listen to people and convey that their views matter– don't talk over people's heads – prepare for discussion – explain with minimum jargon– don't sound distinct or detached– do emphasize why you are a researcher– don't include too many related but different topics– don't expect your audience to read large amounts of text (a poster has 9 to 12 words)– do use demonstrations, animations and cartoons to make your key points and put more

detailed material in a booklet or on a website to which you can refer people.

Top tips for discussions and debates:– select a chair/facilitator who combines authority with accessibility– choose panel members with different viewpoints– strictly limit the amount of time allocated to each speakers' presentation – make time for

intervention of the public– be sure the facilitator has prepared questions– crowding a small space works better than giving people too much room– speakers should be at the same floor level as the audience– use of AV support by speakers should be discouraged because it tends to distance the

audience– facilitator moves in public– circles are better than rows

The use of drama, film clips or cartoons can trigger discussion (e.g. Spectrum-line, 'meet the gene machine')And then the seminar was closed...