Tufts University Conference on
Regulatory Issues in Crop Production and their
Implications for the Food Supply
February 24, 1997
We do not have enough arable land to keep up with the exploding demand for food and feed using present-day techniques. Increases in production must therefore come from the available land. This is only possible if we enhance yield per hectare or - put differently - if we further intensify agriculture.
Better crop protection products and genetically modified plants can significantly enhance yield in a sustainable way. But benefits and risks of innovative solutions have to be thoroughly assessed. This is where the interests of private companies, regulators and the public have to be congruent: without innovation there will be no solution to the food issues at stake.
Sensitivity about the form of food production should not surprise us. Developed countries are accustomed to decades of over-abundance. Some of them can thus afford organic farming. In that kind of luxury, nostalgia for a less intensive agriculture is understandable. We have to recognize it for what it is: memories of a golden past, which kept some in plenty, but many in a state of hunger. It is the historic version of the less intensive agriculture practiced today in most of the Third World.
I am convinced that we can only solve the problems of global food security in an atmosphere of partnership between regulators and industry, in which we focus on what the consumers want and need. In my opinion, that means constructive co-operation to reach common goals. In partnership, one partner does not force his or her set of values on the other. Realism must be the order of the day, not the politics of fear of the unknown nor a zero risk approach. It is up to us - regulators and industry - to send a realistic message.
A consensus on how benefits and risks should be assessed is essential. We need dialogue between regulators and industry, and between both of us and consumers. This is why I accepted the invitation to this conference; it gives me an opportunity to express how leading agrochemical companies, and Novartis in particular, can best contribute to improving the situation.
I would like now to focus on three commitments pursued by leading agrochemical companies today:
Leading companies in our industry are committed to the sustainability of agricultural production. At first sight, yield-intensive agriculture and the protection of the environment may seem to be contradictory objectives. Ecological fundamentalists want the public to believe that this contradiction is a natural law. Our industry has not yet managed to convince people that in most cases, the contrary is true. Global society, in fact, has to rely on high tech agriculture to safeguard the environment. Integrated Crop Management, and especially Integrated Pest Management, help the world conserve its environmental resources, not increase the threat to them.
Our industry has always been committed to providing products which are safe and environmentally sound. In line with the progress in science, leading companies have become ever more demanding. They have set higher and higher internal hurdles for safety to humans and the environment before releasing new products.
Not only new products with new modes of actions to fight the build-up of resistance but also new formulations, new packaging, test kits, new seeds and geneticallymodified crops are the results of our endeavors.
Our industry produces thousands of tons of chemicals which are purposely released into the environment to control weeds, diseases and insects. Substances which are by intention poisonous to weeds, diseases and insects. So we fully appreciate the public interest in regulating our activities and we understand that we will be fully accepted only when we are seen as trustworthy and competent.
As we, Novartis, live these commitments, we are determined to be open, and to base our discussions about the impact on health and environment on a shared set of facts. I have no objection to the occasional and necessary "emotional decision." I fully admit that people's first reaction to a radical new discovery can be surprise, even unease, and that they may not share in the enthusiasm of the inventor. What I am not prepared to accept, however, is that important social and economic decisions be made on a non-rational basis. If this happens, much of the almost $ 3 billion which our industry spends every year on Research & Development is a total waste of money. And yet the output of this research is a real success story. Ever safer and more environmentally friendly pesticides have been introduced. Application rates in some areas have been reduced from 2 kilograms per hectare to 25 grams with new active ingredients. By just isolating the active isomer, we have been able to reduce the application rate of an established Novartis active ingredient by 50% and achieve the same fungicidal effect. We have introduced the first genetically enhanced corn which can protect itself against the European Corn Borer, an insect which can cause yield reductions of 20% and more - and we will continue with this flow of innovations in the future and we will challenge the regulators.
I do not want to be misunderstood: I fully accept an efficient and effective regulatory scheme which sets and implements high standards to protect the broader interests of society. For us, a crucial element in such a scheme is that it provides a stable framework, giving predictability, plausibility and transparency - and it should be based on science.
In the context of regulation of pesticides it is appropriate to spend two minutes on the application of the precautionary principle.
As an industry, and at Novartis, we respect the precautionary principle, now enshrined in the Treaty on the European Union as a guide for European environmental policy. But we are concerned that it is no longer seen as an adjunct to policy making in areas in which, to quote the Rio Declaration, full scientific certainty is lacking. The precautionary principle is often being used as a constraint on innovation, through ever higher criteria applied to define the acceptable level of such certainty. In some cases, support for the precautionary principle masks an attack on the basic assumptions underpinning today's science-based society.
I am not calling for an abandonment of caution. Quite the reverse. The crop protection industry is fully aware of its responsibility to ensure that every plausible hypothesis regarding potential negative impacts is explored and discounted before commercialization of its products. This commitment is evidence of the precautionary principle at work. For us, precaution is an integral part of risk management, which also includes to place risk in its proper context, along with the benefits which a given innovation is expected to bring in terms of higher quality of life, sustainable economic growth and wealth generation.
One goal of any dialogue must be to agree on a set of definitions and standards by which the precautionary principle can be freed of prejudice vis-a-vis innovation. Let me explain, what I mean. Instead of talking about the fuzzy notion of precautionary principle, I would much prefer to talk about safety factors. What is the right and reasonable safety factor when determining the concentration threshold of herbicides in groundwater. Is it 10, 100 or 1.000? How does it compare to other safety factors for example of aircrafts and cars? If you board an airplane it is less than 2, for a car is about 10; in Europe for Atrazine in groundwater it is 20,000. If we were to regulate car traffic in Europe with the same yardstick as pesticides in groundwater as far as safety is concerned, the speed limit on highways would be in the area of 100 yards per hour.
I see here a clear lack of common sense. Why is this so? To a certain extent it has to do with the fact, that pesticides lend themselves as a beautiful playing ground for populistic politicians. This is not necessarily their fault - it is ours that we let them do it.
How can we improve the public debate?
I invite more scientists to come out of their ivory towers, and engage in public debate. Company managers must also get more actively involved than they have been before. Enlightening the consumer means above all discussing matters seriously and in an easy to understand -language.
Benefits have to be better explained and eventual risks should be clear, not exaggerated or dramatized. I believe, for instance, that the present controversy in many EU countries about the use of biotechnology is due in part to key scientists' and managers' lack of a public voice. The set of facts is not being presented. Emotion is not moderated by scientific understanding.
This leads me to a very recent issue in the public debate of the Agribusiness, and which has only partly to do with pesticides: the labeling of the new genetically modified products. This issue will probably be discussed in more detail in tomorrow's session, so that I can concentrate today on some key points. Genetically enhanced products, if we look at their benefits and risks, are overall superior to conventional ones: otherwise nobody would buy them. Therefore we label our seeds that we sell to farmers. If we believe in the right to choose for our customers, we cannot reasonably argue against labels facilitating this choice. Going down the food chain the labelling issue becomes very complex and it should be thought out very thoroughly among all parties concerned - including the consumers - which options are reasonable, feasible and affordable.
To address public concerns appropriately we have to know what they are. This is the reason why I commissioned a U.S. market research company to survey American adults' opinions of the bioengineering of food and related issues. I wanted to get an overview on the public's opinion on some of the key issues which we are discussing at this conference; we will make available the full report at a later stage.
Here are the key top-line results of this survey: A Onethird (32%) of the respondents say they are familiar with the bioengineering of food; onethird (35%) say they know little about it and another third (33%) claim to know nothing at all about the subject.
A Regardless of levels of awareness, onequarter (25%) say they have a positive feeling about bioengineering of food while 17% have negative feelings on the subject. 58% are either neutral (37%) or unsure (21%).
A majority (61%) believe that the use of bioengineering in agriculture is very common ( 14%) or somewhat common (47%).
A Seven in ten (71%) feel that bioengineered food is very safe (21%) or somewhat safe (50%) while just 15% think such food is unsafe. In contrast, a majority (54%) feel that food produced with the use of chemical pesticides is unsafe.
A Only one quarter (25%) would be less likely to buy a food product because it is bioengineered while 13% would be more likely to buy such a product and 56% say it would make no difference.
A Nearly all (93%) agree that bioengineered food should be labeled as such, including 73% who strongly agree with this position.
In general, to me as a European, these results were far more favorable to bioengineering than I had anticipated even in the United States. I imagine that the European guests in this room share the surprise. It is axiomatic in the field of public opinion that ignorance breeds skepticism and negativity. This survey shows that greater familiarity with bioengineering in the United States leads to a higher acceptance in this country compared to Europe, where too little has been done in terms of informing people.
I learn from this, and I might be overemphasizing the European point of view, -that we, the industry, have to more forcefully engage in the public debate concerning pesticides and I invite you, the regulators, to not only put up a challenging and predictable framework but also to raise your voices in order to inform the public about the facts.
