From The Other Side

During the International Business Immersion Program (IBIP) trip, I was encouraged to look at the agriculture industry from many unique perspectives. While it’s not always easy to assume these unfamiliar angles, it is required if we, in agriculture, want to improve how we communicate with consumers. One of these experiences took place at Club De Warande, a Flemish business club in Brussels. One presentation that grabbed my attention was by Greenpeace representative, Marta Vetier.

While the name Greenpeace has historically ruffled some feathers with groups passionate about agriculture, representatives of NGOs must be listened to and understood. Although I take a pro-GMO stance, I was impressed by Marta. I learned that Greenpeace representatives undergo extensive training to remain peaceful, despite conflict and they practice non-violent, creative confrontation. Marta exemplified this demeanor through her entire presentation. Furthermore, she was honest and used hard facts to back up what she was saying. When challenged to discuss human threats presented by GMOs, she set her agenda aside and respectfully said there is no existing scientific evidence that GMOs have or will cause human health issues. It was nice to hear the truth from an NGO that has “zero tolerance” for GMOs. Marta also shared that the EU human food chain is GMO free and 30 GMOs have been authorized as imports for feed and industrial use only.

Marta’s presentation opened my eyes to how Greenpeace supporters and many Europeans view GMOs. By understanding their perspective and objectives, the agriculture industry can focus on communicating specific messages and ultimately come to a fair solution between the two parties. According to the Greenpeace website, the NGO has three demands in regards to the introduction of GMOs in Europe.

· The GM risk assessment process is strengthened, to meet the existing EU legal requirements. This means taking all scientific evidence for the long-term effects of GM products for health and the environment as well as the socio-economic impacts into account.
· The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is reformed by giving it the necessary scientific expertise to carry out complex environmental and health risk assessments.
· GM contamination of seeds is prevented, to allow the survival of conventional and organic agriculture.
· Each member state retains control over its national territory and decides on the use of its land by establishing GMO-free areas.

I appreciated the approach Marta used in talking about the emotional issues of food and health. She was open to listening what we had to say and engaged in a dialogue to discuss both sides of the issue. Based on Marta’s presentation, I believe concerned consumers simply have a fear of the unknown. Communication and education are imperative to finding a common solution. The key point I took away from this presentation is that there are intelligent, poised, well-educated people out there speaking out against agricultural progress. It is crucial for people involved with the modern agriculture industry to share their own stories and perspectives with consumers. The reality is, we are all consumers and we all want a safe, high-quality, affordable food supply, but the first step to compromise is listening to each other’s concerns and looking at the issues from the other side.