Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

Are you in favor or against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)?

Recently the Rt Hon Anders Wijkman, Member of the Swedish Royal Academy of
Sciences, an accomplished environmental activist who served a decade as
member of the European Parliament, asked me the question: "Are you against
GMO - all forms of GMO?"

Actually, my inherently positive approach to finding solutions to major challenges

that humanity faces always starts by searching for the best ways to achieve a
competitive, sustainable, healthy and happy society. While scientists, politicians
and business leaders may have found and implemented great social and
technological solutions in the past, we can always do better, much better indeed.
So, I am not about "for or against", I am about "better".

In our quest to attain a society capable of "responding to basic needs for water,
food, health, housing and energy for all", we cannot leave any opportunity
unturned, because "we do not like it". We have to look reality in the eye, going
beyond what is good and what is bad, going beyond what fits our dogmas and
what does not. We have to ask ourselves: "Is there better?" Often we find
solutions that seem to be the best at that moment in time, not realizing at the
outset the unintended consequences that may be caused by our impatient drive
toward quick solutions.

I know this dilemma all too well. Back in the early 90's, I went out of my way to
promote biodegradable soaps, outcompeting the market leaders without
advertising by distributing an ecological product made in an ecological factory
only to realize that this success caused an increase in demand for palm oil,
which over the next decade lead to the destruction of 2.5 million hectares of
rainforest, including ruining major tracks of the habitat of the orangutan. Was I,
responsible for the destruction of the rainforest because I wanted to contribute to
the cleaning up of the rivers in Europe? It is only then that I realized that
biodegradability - even with the best of my intentions - often has nothing to see
with sustainability. How could I pretend to clean up the rivers in Europe while
undermining the livelihood of the habitat of primates?

© 2010, Pauli
 Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

I realized the hard way that we need to look at the whole system and not simply
pursue one single objective. Every time we only focus on one problem and find
one quick solution, we are likely to cause these unintentional consequences. It
takes years, sometimes decades to realize the adverse effects of what we do,
and then it is often too late. If we decide to ignore the negative impact and side
effects of our hasty actions, and do not dramatically improve, then we cause
collateral damage -knowingly causing harm- a strategy condoned by the military.
However, it cannot be embraced by civil society.

We need to create the space to look at the hard reality through the eyes of a
child, observe all ramifications of the challenges we face without preconceived
ideas. We study the options we have, employ scientific knowledge to the best of
our abilities and design a model that advances life on earth.

This is how I pursue the soap and detergents business today. I - and the ZERI
Foundation - actively promote the extraction of d-Limonene from citrus peels,
which is perhaps one of the most effective, competitive and sustainable cleaning
products. We convert waste from the orange juice industry into cleaning agents
that outcompete palm oil derivatives, using available resources. The waste from
the peels after extraction of the active ingredients can serve as an animal feed.
Instead of causing damage to the rainforest or simply managing waste, we can
generate three revenues and double the number of jobs. This is The Blue
Economy.

After pondering over all possible options, I am encouraging companies from

Japan to the United States, Brazil to South Africa to embrace this "better"
solution. Why would you limit yourself to continue with palm oil-based soaps and
detergents when there are now certified sustainable sources? Can someone
explain to me how a monoculture can ever be sustainable?

I recognize that the d-Limonene may be the best option today. Improvements,
even radical improvements, could emerge anytime. That is the pathway of
evolution, building better competitiveness. At least, there is no more need to
destroy rain forests.

It is against this background and positive approach that I responded to Anders'

question about GMO, drawing from my experience as entrepreneur and
innovator, committed to get better results faster, serving this simple purpose:
respond to the basic needs of all with what we have, navigating the known and
unknown, always prepared to take the risks to do much better than we have been
able to do.

Gunter Pauli

© 2010, Pauli
 Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

Tokyo, 5th of October 2010

Dear Anders,

First of all, thank you for asking.

Actually, I received that same question a few months ago during a conference on
the future of agriculture in Brussels. And just last week, members of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences (at their splendid halls in Budapest) debated
this subject with me with remarkable openness and determination.

The question we have to answer is not if we are in favor or against GMO.

The first question we have to answer is: "What is the purpose of GMO?"

If the purpose is the make crops resistant to drought, then the first question is:
"Why do you want to plant a crop that needs water in an area that does not have
water?"

And, if climate change is the cause of the drought (an easy excuse these days)
why don't we switch to crops that can grow under these environmental
conditions?

If we only choose to farm Of course, if options for crops are limited options to
only 5 crop varieties, five varieties (wheat, rice, corn, soy, palm) planted as
wherever we are in the monocultures, and we have discarded all other 1,000
world, of course GMO is the opportunities that are proven locally ... then we have
only option to feed the no option: we must genetically modify these crops to
resist drought.

But, what if in this International Year of Biodiversity we search for the best seeds,
the result of millions of years of adaptation, then we could embrace "the best
option that is readily available and proven to work", without any potential
unintended consequences.

We can actually plant these seeds immediately without having to undertake

further research, save the money that now is spent on approvals, media
campaigns and lobbyists who all try to get this "drought resistant" seed endorsed
by policy makers.

A quick review of established seed banks confirms that there are hundreds of
biota available for any latitude or altitude with proven track records to withstand

© 2010, Pauli
 Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

drought. However, the next argument will be that the "traditional product" cannot
produce enough to feed the world. Is that true? We are made to believe that only
five main crops and only GMO combined with (thanks to GMO reduced) chemical
cocktails will save us from famine and starvation. Let me analyze that logic.

If we only consume a fraction of what is produced

If we choose to only give (0.1% of tea, 0.2% of coffee, or 17% of the sugar
value to 0.1-17% of the cane), and the rest is simply left to rot, generate
biomass of a crop, and throw methane or burn, or plow it back into the soil, then
the rest away, left to rot it is true that we will never produce enough. Thus,
generating methane, of course if we rely on a few monocultures that only extract
GMO is the only option. one ingredient for consumption, then we will have
turned poverty and hunger into sustainable
phenomena. I doubt if the appetite of the world's
growing population would ever be able to have food security for all, even with the
introduction of widespread GMO. Maybe the creation of this permanent scarcity
is what the suppliers of GMO need in order to justify their argument that they
alleviate hunger in the world.

Monocultures, irrigation, seed selection and fertilizers have boosted output of

single crops, no doubt. However, this approach has lost sight of the tremendous
opportunities beyond wheat and rice. We should cascade our agricultural
resources just like ecosystems do. Actually, humans are the only species that
wastes waste. No other living system does that. So, instead of facing the
permanent risk of famine, using proven integrated farming techniques combined
with the best of modern agriculture, we can go beyond the concept of scarcity
and plan for sufficiency, and even dream of abundance.

Thus, if we turn agriculture into a "system" of production and consumption that

uses all available resources, and for example were to start farming mushrooms
on coffee and tea waste as is done in Africa and Latin America, or on rice straw
as is the tradition in China, then we will be producing on the plantations that
solely focus on export crops 100x more amino acids for human consumption with
what is available today. There is not one GMO or irrigation plan that could even
come close to this performance that is proven.

In the past, agricultural waste from rice straw was used as a building material in
Cairo. When concrete and cement began to be used, Cairo faced intolerable air
pollution due to the burning of excesses of rice straw. The "best" option proposed
was to genetically modify rice to "short straw varieties". Who could be against
reducing respiratory illnesses caused by uncontrolled incineration of agricultural
waste?

© 2010, Pauli
 Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

However, in a sprawling megalopolis like Cairo,

When straw is discarded as a
building material, and its why was the option of generating more food not
excesses are now burned into retained? The farming of straw mushrooms in an
ashes, causing air pollution, urban area generates jobs, income and converts
why is the solution a short waste into food, while eliminating air
straw rice (a GMO) and not a contamination. It is now done in 16 countries. Was
massive farming of straw the excuse that the Egyptians do not eat
mushrooms? mushrooms? They never ate hamburgers either,
but cheap hamburgers are recently the rage. So is
there a flaw in our economic logic?

The mindset that underpins the drive to GMO is the construct of scarcity. The
efficient allocation of scarce resources provides the logic for business.
Unfortunately over the past half century, business is reduced to a core business
based on a core competence. How often did I hear that one or the other
multinational is not into mushrooms, and therefore this option of converting agro-
waste to food - how laudable and even competitive can be - is not even
considered. Actually, Anders, we have to admit, (1) these companies are not
capable of taking up this proposal, (2) management simply does not have the
skills needed to introduce this simple innovation, and (3) shareholders are
capable of understanding it but need to be exposed to the option.

If we are prepared to embrace integrated farming, cascading nutrients in the field

or inner cities, instead of focusing on one and discarding the rest, then we can
produce food even on dry farm land or in urban concrete jungles. Then we could
have 1,000 other sources of vegetable protein known around the world, and
5,000 varieties of edible fungi that combined could one day produce more than
we can eat!

If all coffee waste were used to farm mushrooms, we would produce an

additional 16 million tons of food - using what we have today! Imagine the impact
if we add tea, straw, cobs, and pruning from orchards. It may surpass the 100
million ton mark, bypassing food from fish catch and fish farming.

Anders, while this sets the stage, there is a need to offer you a second example
to clarify my approach to finding the best solution, and offer a framework for
assessing the potential contribution of GMO to a sustainable, healthy and happy
world.

Do you remember, some 15 years ago, the arrival of Golden Rice? This GMO
rice was heralded as a definitive solution in the fight against blindness. It was
introduced as one of the great contributions of science, and probably one of the
key reasons why you asked "if I am against all forms of GMO?"

© 2010, Pauli
 Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

If the purpose is to protect children from blindness we genetically modify rice to

include betacarotene into the rice kernel. How could anyone ever be against this
option?

We should not form our opinion on what is good or what is bad, we should
choose the best possible option, with the least risks, based on an understanding
of all possible unintentional consequences to anyone else with whom we share
the planet.

When confronted with such a societal challenge like blindness, we should first
ask ourselves why is that blindness on the rise? Quickly we realize that there is a
shortage of betacarotene ... obvious! Is that enough of a reason to rush to and
genetically modify rice to include betacarotene? I beg everyone to bear with me
and think this through.

Monocultures created a shortage of We should ask ourselves the question:

"Why is there is a shortage of betacarotene
betacarotene, increasing the risk of
in the food supply chain around rice
blindness. Why is red rice (a GMO) is
the preferred solution, instead of paddies?" Studying ecosystems we realize
generating more food and more that micro-algae, including the blue green
betacarotene with available algae are just about always around. This is
resources? one of the first forms of life that emerged on
earth. These have been in existence for
over a billion of years, and weathered all calamities. Micro-algae are known
producers of betacarotene and many other nutrients. So what happened to them
around the rice paddies?

We realize that there used to be a scum growing on the irrigated paddies. This
scum has been removed due to the chemicals used in rice farming to boost
output. That scum ... is rich in micro-algae, and very rich in betacarotene.

In earlier times, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian farmers used to put

shrimps and even carps in the rice paddies. These organisms devoured
betacarotene-rich algae and secured it into the food chain so that people had
enough of it, naturally using all available resources. That cultivation system is not
as high in rice productivity as a monoculture, but this traditional system of
cultivation generates more nutrients, providing food security, and even secures
the necessary defenses against modern illnesses such as blindness. This
farming system provides more disposable income, since all basic needs can be
covered locally. This puts more money in the pocket to pay for school. Export
crops are notorious for generating more output, and an income that fluctuates
with the world market prices.

© 2010, Pauli
 Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

Our "modern" farming system of rice that focuses on maximizing rice eliminated
betacarotene (and much more) from the supply chain! In our drive to increase the
output of one component - rice - we decreased the natural cultivation of all the
essential amino acids and micro-nutrients that rice alone cannot supply. How can
we accept that the solution to blindness is genetic manipulation?

If we really want to fight blindness, and if that is our genuine purpose, then we
farm rice, let the scum form on the water, feed it to the ducks, crustaceans and
fish. Then we have a balanced intake of protein, and at the same time, we have a
good supply (again) of betacarotene, while naturally fertilizing the ponds with
manure. As our research demonstrates, this system integrated farming system
produces more nutrients than intensive rice farming could ever achieve. We are
not substituting blindness for famine as some proponents of GMO want us to
believe.

Golden Rice does not solve any issue beyond blindness at a premium. Rather,
GMOs perpetuate unsustainability in farming, both on the production side (too
many inputs depleting top soil) and on the side of consumption (too much of the
wrong food).

How is it possible that the Swiss company that controls Golden Rice has an
exclusive patent (until 2012), exploiting the sale of the "anti-blindness" rice for a
profit? If the purpose is to earn money and maximize return to shareholders,
then this should be spelled out when
GMO is not bad - however there is a waging the campaign to halt blindness.
much better way! So why settle for
the expensive, profit-driven, risk- I am not saying that business is bad. We
laden, and approval-loaded solution, have to ask ourselves constantly "Is there a
while proven integrated farming better way"? And the conclusion in this
systems can evolve our present case is that "There is indeed a much better
model of scarcity to one of way!". This "better way" addresses our
abundance? shortcomings without leaving the world in
hunger. Time has come to stop patching up
the problems with quick fixes, and start implementing lasting solutions that can
always evolve to better ways over time.

In Brazil, we calculated that the amount of betacarotene that can be naturally

produced per hectare per year by the ecosystem that made rice so competitive is
40 times higher than what could ever be genetically engineered into the rice. This
can be achieved at a lower cost.

© 2010, Pauli
 Opinion on a Hot Topic by the author of The Blue Economy

So it is not that I am against Golden Rice or GMO, I am always challenged to ask

"What is best to achieve a goal?" If the goal is to fight blindness due to a
shortage of betacarotene, then Golden Rice is a poor option. Worse, it is an
expensive option and a rather ineffective compared to the integrated farming
techniques that have been proven to function.

We should ask the next question: Do the farmers earn more money by stamping
out blindness? Or, does this rice seed cost more, solely increasing the supplier's
profit?

The company that developed Golden Rice requested early on support from the
United Nations, and asked governments to grant an exclusive license to operate.
Is ethical for a company to use an exclusive patent to profit from stamping out
blindness, especially if the company applies for grants and tax breaks to
guarantee a minimum return?

If the UN pays or governments make up for the difference, then it is tax money
that foots the bill! I am fundamentally against the diversion of citizens' earnings to
guarantee a profit margin, or to subsidize research programs that are not solving
problems, but only placing patches on the challenges of our time.

Until today every case that has been posed to me justifying GMO, I have found
much better solutions that provide (1) higher output for the whole (not on one
crop), (2) contributes to the health and livelihood of all, and (3) stamp out hunger
once and for all. And guess what, these are more competitive solutions as well.

Hope this helps!

gunter

Gunter Pauli is the designer of "The Blue Economy" and the author of the book with the same
title. Each week, he publishes one innovative business model that has been benchmarked
somewhere in the world. He has competed successfully on the market as an entrepreneur, and
the 50+ projects his foundation has been involved demonstrate the commercial viability of these
innovations. For more information <www.zeri.org> and <www.TheBlueEconomy.org>.

reprint and posting of this copyrighted article is solely authorized after a written permission has
been granted by the author by email only

please write to <[email protected]>

© 2010, Pauli