Gene technology has taken on the status of an article of faith in Europe; it is considered unethical to pursue it. In North America and some developing countries, on the other hand, it is accepted and promoted. Why this great difference in attitudes?

Thomas Bernauer: The USA and Europe have two very different regulatory cultures. In the States, for any regulation aimed at restricting the market, one has to prove that regulation would definitely prevent a real harm. In Europe, on the other hand, regulations are issued according to the supply principle, in other words it is about avoiding harm as far as possible.

In your book "Genes, Trade, and Regulation“ you analyse diverse actors and attempt to tease out conflicts. Let's start with the interest groups. Why is it that a company like Monsanto has no success in selling its products to the EU market?

Bernauer: This is precisely the result of the structures of regulatory systems. In the USA there are three independent offices, the FDA (health), the USDA (agriculture) and the EPA (envrironment). In the EU, by contrast, the system is far more complex. Not only does the EU regulate, but so too do individual nation states, and sometimes even regions. Opponents of genetic technology therefore have far more possibilities for action; the European regulatory system is certainly an advantage for Greenpeace.

What does that mean, is our system good or bad?

Bernauer: If one estimates the risks of gene technology to be high, then our system is a good one. It is inherently risk-averse because lots of obstacles have to be overcome before a product can be put on the market. From Monsanto's point of view, or Syngenta's, our system is bad because it does not embrace risk; it slows down innovation.

Have the companies slipped up? Where and why have they failed?

Bernauer: In Europe the mistake was in wanting to bring gene technology into the system in a big way. For example, maize or soya, which are ingredients in many food products. It would have been better to find single, specialised niches for the initial placement of the product, for instance genetically modified tomatoes.

At the same time we must recognise that the Europeans were already more critical of gene technology than the US Americans even before the first products arrived on the market in 1996. American consumers are far less risk-averse and do not consider gene technology to be problematic.

Why?

Bernauer: One important reason is the issue of labelling, the declaration on the packet that something "contains GMO". It was introduced in Switzerland in 1996/97 after the political establishment gave in to consumer pressure. A lot of people say if we had not introduced this label, then protest would have slowly petered out. There is no labelling in the USA.

Organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are successful in raising protest against products from green gene technology–sometimes by using arguments that are scientifically false. Why do these arguments find wide acceptance?

Bernauer: Federal offices in the USA–like FDA, USDA and EPA–enjoy far higher levels of consumer trust than their counterparts in the EU. In Europe non-governmental organisations are perceived as being more believable than politicians.

One reason for this is certainly the number of food scandals that have occurred in Europe over the past few years. Another important point is that the average EU state imports 50 per cent of its food from abroad. And abroad is abroad. We know from consumer polls that people place more trust in food that is produced in their own country. Add to this, for example, that Greenpeace acts in a very opportunistic way and rides on the public wave of rebellion to generate support for its own concerns.

In the food industry, permission was given for some products of genetically modified plants–lecithin from soya, for example–some time ago. Here a number of products are available that contain genetically modified bacteria: enzymes, vitamines. There is hardly any protest against this. Why the imbalance–the "evil" polenta from GM maize, on one side, and the "good" vitamin B supplement on the other?

Bernauer: If a zero-tolerance policy towards GM products were to be introduced into our food chain it would come to a standstill. Totally separate processing chains would have to be installed for GM and non-GM food products, which would mean a huge rise in cost. Greenpeace would soon reach the limits of its popularity. This is why I believe that there is a tacit moratorium between non-governmental organisations and opponents of GM.

„Genes, Trade, and Regulation. The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology“: in his latest book ETH Professor Thomas Bernauer takes a close look at the market for genetically modified food. large

Or is it because consumers don't know enough about gene technology? Current Euro-Polls show that in the EU, as well as in Switzerland, six out of ten people think that "organic tomatoes don't have genes".

Bernauer: I don't subscribe to the thesis that the aversion of consumers stems from a deficit of information. Nor does the Euro-Poll claim any such correlation. Also, I don't believe the aversion has anything to do with the awareness of risk. It is rather the case that more hazy, moralising arguments prevail, such as "one shouldn't mess with nature," or "one doesn't meddle with God's work".

A recent survey from the GfS research institute discovered that only every fifth consumer in Switzerland would buy GM food products. This means that acceptance is at the same level as 1998 when the Swiss electorate set very tight limits on gene technology with the "Genschutz-Initiative". Why haven't proponents managed to win more trust in these products since then?

Bernauer: Consumers are still very sceptical. But it certainly isn't because they weren't given enough information; they know as much or as little about the issue as they did then.

After a long moratorium the EU, under pressure from the WTO, is now admitting GM products; the import of maize from Syngenta has already been granted permission. Are we on the way to a harmonisation of trade regulation? Or did the EU just succumb to pressure?

Bernauer: I don't think that the EU will adopt the American system; the regulatory structures in the EU will hardly change in the next ten years. Nevertheless, the EU has tried to harmonise things to a certain extent, for example with the concession for some specific GM plants. But the individual member states of the EU find ways to circumvent or obstruct full implementation. This is bound up in agricultural policy. There is a home-grown surplus of many products in the EU, despite falling numbers of farms and farmers. There is little interest in the introduction of technology that would increase productivity. More store is put on organic farming. First of all there is consumer demand for such produce and second, it would be a way to check very intensive over-production.

But to get back to your question. The conflict with the WTO and the USA has not been resolved, in essence, nothing has changed. And I don't believe that the EU will make further concessions.

New rules, stricter than heretofore, have now been introduced in the EU on the declaration of GMO content. Won't this exacerbate the already smouldering conflict between the WTO and the USA?

Bernauer: In the trade conflict with the USA the issue at stake is the free trade of GM products. The question of labelling hasn't so far been raised officially. But I think that the rules concerning declaration will be the real obstacle for the Americans.

High rates of growth are being achieved in developing countries owing to gene technology . At a recent conference, organised by the Centre for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) and the Swiss Centre for International Agriculture (ZIL) at ETH Zurich, it was stressed that GM products could be an important weapon in the fight against hunger in the world. What do you think?

Bernauer: I don't like this sort of debate. It is too black and white. The problem of hunger is biggest in countries where wars are being fought, countries on the peripheries of extreme climate zones. Somalia and Sudan are current examples of this.

If industry and research proclaim that their aim is to end hunger in the world, they are doing this out of a strong self-interest. The same applies to Greenpeace, that purports to be the saviour of developing countries, the deliverer from "evil" GM products. What is needed is a golden mean. In certain cases, GM products can certainly be useful.

What is your prognosis for gene technology for agricultural use, will it come to be accepted?

Bernauer: I'm sceptical as far as the EU and Switzerland are concerned.

There is hardly any discussion of gene technology for medical use, such as drugs or diagnosis procedures. Why do critics of gene technology pay no–or so little–attention to this area not?

Bernauer: Genetic technology for medical use has a clear user profile; the benefits are evident. This only applies in a very limited way to gene technology for agricultural use.