Constructive dialogue must acknowledge different beliefs

Humans have always been challenged by the complexity of nature. Confronted with different explanations, they look for the one they take to be true, guided either by gut feeling or by a person or institution they consider trustworthy. Even experts are not free from subjectivity. Everyone is influenced by their attitudes, values and individual life circumstances.

At BASF Agricultural Solutions, we have experienced this firsthand. Our products often provoke debate. The use of crop protection or molecular biology in plant breeding are polarizing topics. Take Amflora. In 2010, this genetically modified potato variety, developed as an optimized renewable raw material for the potato starch industry, was approved by the authorities for cultivation in Europe. We knew there could be consumer concerns, so we launched an extensive communication campaign with lectures, panel discussions and a dedicated website. Nevertheless, the criticism from nongovernmental organizations and others was huge. Although the product had been exhaustively tested and approved in numerous scientific studies, we failed to convince the broader public of its safety and benefits. Pressure by environmental groups was massive and persistent so we stopped the project.

Today, we have a similar experience with CRISPR/Cas, a new method for modifying genetic information. The technology could be used in plant breeding to develop specifically adapted varieties that can, for example, better withstand heat or drought as a result of climate change. But opponents of this technology fear the effects could be unpredictable, and some even reject modern breeding in principle.

When both sides of the argument claim to act in the spirit of sustainability, how can the public make up its mind? At the time of Amflora’s approval, I was responsible for regulatory approval and frustrated that we failed to convince the public of our point of view. An open debate does not seem possible when people only allow the scientific information that confirms their preconceived opinions.

How can we find common ground to start a constructive dialogue?

To some extent it depends on the environment in which discussions take place. In a panel discussion with a large audience, people have their message to convey, and they stick to it. But in smaller groups, there is a chance to make people think differently about a product. You also get a better understanding of where their concerns come from. So, we are increasingly focusing on developing discussions with the public, and instead of an us-and-them approach, we ask how we can jointly define value for society. 

When you’ve spent 20 years trying to explain a subject and you still hear the same objections that you don’t think are valid, it can definitely be frustrating. But I’m optimistic that solidified positions can change when people start looking at a topic from a completely different angle. The younger generation is very focused on addressing challenges like climate change. I think they will take a different, more open-minded position.