Mallen Baker's Blog

In defence of well-fed activists

16 Nov 2009

Greenpeace

Regular readers of this blog will have noted that I often defend companies from some of the poorly thought-through attacks of certain activist groups. I wouldn't want you to think that was completely a one-way arrangement. Enter the Nestle chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.

Mr Brabeck-Letmathe has attacked campaigners who are opposed to certain novel food technologies, such as genetic modification. Specifically, he said: "It is disheartening to see how easily a group of well-intentioned and well-fed activists can decide about new technologies at the expense of those who are starving".

I generally suspect that arguments are weak when people resort to name-calling.

Well-fed activists are just as entitled to their view as well-fed CEOs, of course. Neither can claim unique empathy with the starving on account of the emptiness of their stomachs. So what?

That one sentence makes three statements.

1. New technologies will unquestionably benefit the starving.
2. There are no potential downsides to these technologies to be factored into the equation that would be held as reason for caution by any reasonable person.
3. Activists are naive - the phrase 'well-intentioned and well-fed' is pretty clear.

This trivialises an important debate, and the chairman of such a major player as Nestle - long-time proponent of GM food as he may be - should be more measured in his comments.

There are a lot of existing things that could support the poorest people in the world to escape from poverty. Many of them are not done. Sometimes it is local corruption, sometimes it is pricing. Sometimes it is just poor choices.

To argue that the further development of GM food would necessarily solve starvation is unlikely in the extreme.

It's not that it couldn't be part of the answer - but such black or white arguments do not boost confidence in the person making the case.

Secondly, it is not a trivial concern that once genetically modified foods are 'in the wild' then they cannot be recalled - and if they go on to cause unanticipated harm, then that harm may far outweigh the benefits.

That concern may not mean, as some campaigners would like, that no reasonable society would sanction the use of the technology. But it merits serious consideration - and caution. The kind of caution that may conclude that proposed novel organisms should not be sanctioned.

Finally, we can all throw names around. If the activists are 'well-intentioned and well-fed' they would probably categorise Mr Brabeck-Letmathe as 'ill-intentioned and well-fed' (the fact that his company would profit from the technology being Exhibit A for that particular attack, I imagine).

It doesn't move us on. We need to attack the arguments, not the people.

And companies engaging in debate on the public interest - which personally I would always encourage - should be mindful as they do so that their commercial interest in a technology makes invoking the cause of feeding the poor a difficult thing to do.

Tags: CSR NGO campaigns gmo genetically modified food corporate social responsibility Mallen Baker

Comments

Add your comment

Your name  

Your web link  

Just checking that you're a real person. Which barks? dog or cat?

 

<< back