Farmer, consumer and bio-technologist

A classic thriller

I read an article in the Dutch Volkskrant, headed: 'Biotech afraid to invest due to public opinion'. Immediately I thought of classic psychological thrillers. You know the type: a movie that starts with a happy couple living in a charming village, where slowly the atmosphere chills and the relationship ends in a fearful and dramatic conclusion. It starts with a little thing, but gradually a vicious circle ensues, feeding distrust with distrust. Everyone is gripped by fear and distrust and nobody keeps their hands clean. The viewer would like to call out that the other person doesn't mean so bad, but as the story develops he starts to doubt the integrity of both partners himself. This kind of movie has a tragic element, and we see fate at work without being able to do something about it. We stand by powerlessly and with chills running down our spine.

Reproduced with permission. A version of this article was published in the Dutch Volkskrant of Saturday 24th February 2001. Dr Dick G.A. Koelega, "science-staff member biotechnology and ethics at the Institute Kerk en Wereld (Church and World) in Driebergen (The Netherlands)". Member of the Committee Biotechnology in Animals, Ministry of Agriculture. The article elaborates on a book that was published in 2000: God & co? Believing in a technological culture (D.G.A. Koelega and W.B. Drees, red.) Kok, Kampen 2000.

The deterioration of a trust relationship

In my opinion, the relationship between companies that market biotechnological foodstuffs and the consumer is also developing according to this pattern. What was once a happy relationship between consumers and farmers (who I will use as a model for the entire food sector for the sake of convenience) based on mutual trust, has in the last few years ended in bitter struggle and removal. I cannot point to a single cause or guilty party, but somewhere along the line things went wrong.

There was a report on farmers polluting ground water and poisoning animals of prey by the accumulation of pesticides in their body fat. Consumers went to see the scientist and the mayor of the village and demanded more research and stricter rules. But, because there was stricter supervision from then on, people found out that more things were amiss, and that for instance agricultural toxins were present in our food as well. Distrust reared its ugly head: consumers no longer blindly trusted their partner, and farmers got touchy with consumers, who started spouting - in their eyes - emotional and unreasonable criticisms on their way of working. Didn't the farmer try his best! Next in the scenario were a number of disasters that spoiled the relationship even further: mercury in fish, swine fever, salmonella contamination, BSE.

Consumers started spouting their partly unfounded accusations toward their house mates openly at birthday parties: it won't be long before I can't eat anything anymore, it seems there's something wrong with all I eat, farmers cheat me and don't tell me everything. And a renewed appeal for help to the scientist only resulted in contradictory reports: sprayed apples were deemed safe one moment, and unsafe the next. This eventually also diminished their faith in him, and on top of that the scientist started to increasingly rent himself out to farmers and seemed to lose his impartiality. And even the consumers' faith in the mayor lessened, because various incidents showed that he wasn't nearly as informed as he made out to be about everything that was wrong with food, and did not seem to be able or willing to enforce his own rules. The atmosphere, not just in the house but in the entire village, became ever more oppressive. Hitchcock couldn't have staged it better.

The strange guest: the bio-technologist

In that setting, a somewhat strange - but at first sight friendly - guest has appeared on the stage in the last few years: the bio-technologist (the personification of the rapidly growing biotechnological sector). A new neighbor who came from outside the village and, as it turned out over time, did strange things in his house and later in his backyard. He told everyone who would listen that he was making something very beautiful and useful. But it sometimes looked strange, and there were reports on ecological disruptions in his garden. Whether these reports were true, the consumer had no real way of knowing. And the neighbor himself wasn't able to truly refute these reports, no matter how hard he tried. Then the consumers thought, where there's smoke there must be fire. Besides, they found out that their new neighbor was cooperating with their housemate, in whom they had lost trust more and more. Thus, their distrust against him also grew.

How will this movie end?

How will this movie end? Will the farmer and the bio-technologist succeed in selling new products to the consumers, or will all their efforts prove to be in vain and will they go bankrupt? Will the distrust between them increase further, and end possibly catastrophically? Or will they have a good talk - as intended with the debate in the Ministry of Agriculture, led by former Minister Jan Terlouw - and make peace and again trust each other enough to go on together?

I don't know, I don't have the script with me. But then, who has? The end of the script basically still has to be written, and we are all a part of it. I would like to carry my own weight in bringing about a possibly happier ending. I assume we can no longer expect things to go back to the way they were. The relationship has been damaged too much for that, and the consumer is much too emancipated and well informed now.

The law of maintaining risk

Another factor is that grounds for insecurity will remain. It is becoming ever more obvious, for instance, that more science and technology no longer decrease the risk of something happening to us, but instead increase it. We try to limit the risk of our crops being eaten by parasites by using pesticides. But apparently this pollutes our ground water. If we then start applying herbicide resistant crops to prevent this, we create another risk of ecological disruptions. And if, to limit that risk, we set up a sizeable controlling body, we become dependent on a suffocating bureaucracy that is fallible and makes contradictory statements itself.

In other words: it's becoming ever more clear that there exists a law of maintaining risk. This makes it impossible to go back to the old belief that science and technology can offer the solution to all our problems as long as we keep investing enough. Of course, they have brought us a lot of good in the last two centuries (and a lot of bad as well), but we cannot conclude from that that they will be able to continue to do so. Just like for investment funds, results from the past offer no guarantees for the future. Modesty and caution should prevail over the assumption that biotechnology will deliver us from hunger and disease and will create a heaven on earth full of healthy, prospering and long-living people. I think that the quality of life is much better served with a food production that does not use or at least uses less pesticides or biotechnology, such as biological farming in combination with a durable lifestyle of consumers.

A possibly happier sequel scenario

What kind of sequels does this kind of observation lead to? Do they supply handholds to lessen the atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust? I hope so, and allow me to let my imagination run away with me.

The farmer: openness and dialogue

One of the things I see is that farmers openly show their limitations and doubts, and abstain from ambitious promises. They stop fighting critical consumers and invite them to help think of solutions for both their problems, trusting more on dialogue and less on the weapon of PR and information to create a solid ground for their activities. All this with the motto: who wants to receive trust, will have to give trust. Maybe they will also try to explore alternatives for the current as well as the biotechnological way of producing, and to find support in the growing number of companies in other sectors who apply themselves to socially responsible undertaking. Because there is lots to learn and lots of encouragement to be derived from it.

The bio-technologist: care and realism

Maybe the bio-technologist will adopt an attitude of care and realism as well, an attitude that is usually inherent in scientists, but to exact funding and to attract talented staff they have to sometimes abandon it. The higher the expectations, the greater the disappointment when they don't come true. This could be seen in consumers who had been waiting so long for the big leaps forward that had been promised them but that have not happened until now, so that they (partly justified, partly unjustified) got the impression that biotechnology is just a risky and expensive technology that holds little benefit. I can imagine the bio-technologist in the sequel to the movie taking that impression seriously and not limiting himself to giving information about what he does, but really start a dialogue with consumers and farmers about his motives and limitations.

The consumer: self-reflection and common ideal

For consumers I predict that they will eventually consult with themselves more. They will find out that it isn't completely honest to be so distrusting and critical toward the farmers and bio-technologists. They will see that, after all, they are trying to realize the consumer's own ambitions to a great extent. Consumers want to lead long, healthy and prosperous lives. After saying goodbye to God and the afterlife they have started to embrace the idea that this life is the only life they have, and that there will be no second chance, or a party on the other side. They want to make this life into a party and get as much out of it as they can. They will finally start to realize that it was partly their own fault because they called in the farmer, the bio-technologist and the mayor as their bodyguards - so that their party would not be disturbed.

And so they gradually realize that in fact they have a common ideal: a life as Adam or Eve, without risk. But then suddenly they realize it is all fiction! They remember that life is always surrounded by insecurity, from pre-school to the grave, and that it will always be that way. The fact that they exist is the greatest security they will ever get. And there lies the connection to their bodyguards. And they are in the same boat. And maybe the consumers then decide to talk to them about it.

From their insight that the vulnerability of existence becomes more bearable when you are more realistic and more honest to each other. Perhaps the upcoming social debate about bio-technology and food will also unfold according to this same scenario, and will not only be about empirical, ethical and legal matters on which people differ so much in opinion, but also about the mutual philosophical questions as to the limits of our knowledge and capabilities, the grounds of our 'having to' and the gradations of what we hope for in this life. That would be a thrilling movie that I wouldn't mind seeing.