Interview
of Clement Tolusso :Interview
of Clement Tolusso :by Michael Curti, Bénédict de Moerloose
Q: Are you really a member of the Greenpeace organisation?
A: Absolutely, I am the spokesman since six years.
Q: What is your position concerning the genetic manipulations?
A: Greenpeace has an official position which is to ask for an arrest
of the "dissemination", which means for us that we do not want any
genetically modified plants in the cultures and also no patents for
that. It is our fundamental position. But now, this position has
slightly changed, since obviously some countries and industries
encourage the dissemination of genetically modified cultures. For
this reason, we ask that these genetically modified cultures are at
least separated from the other cultures, in order that the consumer
knows or at least can choose what he really wants to eat.
Q: From where does come this position?
A: The transgenic intervention on a plant goes through various test
barriers that nature has already inflicted to itself. That means that
usual plants have already difficulty to survive by themselves, if
they are not watered, etc. They have been selected to become more and
more performant, but in cultivated places. When they are left free in
nature, they produce very little and they often don*t reach maturity
to reproduce themselves.
The transgenic plants, when they are disseminated, can either
contaminate the wild plants with their transgenic genes or they may
represent an unfair competition for the wild plants, because for
example they can produce an insecticide which cannot be produced in
the same manner by a wild plant. There is also a big problem which is
due to the fact that transgenic plants are always licensed, that is
to say that farmers have to pay if they want to keep part of the
harvest in order to use them again next year, and if it is not the
case, the plants are gifted with a gene (called a stop gene) which
inactivates their ability to reproduce. This represents a general
problem for agriculture, because it makes a strong competition for
local species which are often better suited to the place where they
are cultivated, because farmers know their country, their seeds etc.
When the plants are licensed, farmers will not be able to do that
anymore. There is also a big health problem which is due to the fact
that many plants are manipulated by using a marker gene for
antibiotic resistance and therefore they contain this gene. Several
countries have prohibited plants which contain such resitant genes to
antibiotics which is, unluckily, not the case for Switzerland. All
thes points make that there is a combination of risks.
Q: Personaly, when did you take this position?
A: It was before entering Greenpeace. And personaly, I think that
scientific people should be clever enough to enact for themselves a
moratory on genetic manipulations.
Q: Is your position linked with an ethical question?
A: Essentially, yes
Q: For you, should we wait for more knowledge?
A: The searchers should perform fundamental research not funded by
industries which require immediate results. It is the problem of some
soja (Monsanto) or corn (Novartis): these plants have been
commercialised because the industries wanted to be first to get the
market. But this advantage can have a boomerang effect, for example
the cotton of Monsanto is a failure. And now, they are farmers who
attack Monsanto.
Q. Can we trust the legislation in Switzerland for the genetically
modified organisms?
A: No, it is not possible to trust the controls done by the
authorities. Indeed, they are often under the influence of
industries. Greenpace has acted several times either for impeding the
arrival in Switzerland of unauthorized transgenic cereals or for
ordering the removal from shops of genetically modified products
which were not labeled correctly. The authorities in Basel have for
example admitted that Greenpeace plays an important role since they
are themselves unable to supervise everything. And it is only after
having authorised the first transgenic soja that the Swiss Federal
Office of Environment has enrolled geneticists and
microbiologists.
Q: All precautions are therefore not taken?
A: No, all necessary precautions are not taken and thus essentially
for a question of money.
Q: Are all industries the same?
A: No, those which develop drugs need to be very serious because they
are the only ones which are really checked. The big fear is in the
fields of agriculture and food.
Q: What do you do for that?
A: Till now, we have not done anything really special in Switzerland
but we perform continuous checks. On the opposite, in France, we have
opened a network which is called "info-conso " (information for
consumer), which provide informations to guarentee the content of
products.
In Switzerland however, we are helping in the preparation of an
international conference (which will be held in Columbia) and we hope
that all countries will sign a protocol on biosafety.
Q: Do you think that the maxim "we become what we eat" is true?
A. No, but there is a risk that some indirect effects may occur.
Q: Thus, there is an indirect risk for human being?
A. Yes.
Q: Do you think that some industries could be prejudicial for
consumers in order to speed research, and consequently their
benefit?
A: Yes, clearly Novartis and Nestlé. Novartis has for example
commercialized a corn with a resistant gene to an antibiotic
(ampicillin) and clearly nobody wants to eat such a gene.
Q: Do you communicate with these industries?
Little. Novartis has a poor communication, which is not the case for
Nestlé, for example.
Q: Some industries promise to cure a lot of diseases with genetic
therapy. Do you believe that?
A: For the time being, there is nothing which really works as a
therapy. May-be it will come. It is indeed a field where a true
research can be done, in an academic environment where precautions
are taken. But I have also the impression that they promise things to
some people who have a difficult life, sus as patienst with cystic
fibrosis or muscular dystrophy. These people have been heavily
utilized recently in a vote on this topic in Switzerland.
What can happen is that when everything will be understood, screening
tests will be performed. And we have already screening tests which
are able to detect 140 very expensive diseases. Consequently
interruptions of pregnancies are performed. In United States, some
parents have not been accepted for coverage insurance because they
had not performed a genetic analysis of their future baby. And thus,
instead of taking care of patients, they will be eliminated: for
curing disease, sick people will be eliminated. From a financial
point of view, you can argue.. but for human diversity and our
ability to be compassionate and to live with people who are neither
beautiful nor clever, I think it is a big loss.
I often think to science fiction: a more and more selected society
where several classes exist and in the upper one live only the rich,
the beautiful etc. and in the lower the disabled people, who have
nothing and for whom the parents are unable to afford an abortion
since they have no money... It is too simple to say that either you
do an abortion, or you have no insurance coverage.
It is a problem which goes very far and which is difficult to solve,
because it is a global problem, also linked to the problem of
overpopulation. Do we want to go on to accept everybody or only
people who will not cost too much and therefore who will be
productive... It is a very complicated problem which has religious
and ethical aspects, which are beyond the scope of Greenpeace. It is
a huge debate, but what we want is that a responsible attitude is
adopted now.
Q: In summary, you are neither for, nor against genetic
engineering?
You cannot really be for or against a technology. We are against the
possible misuse of this technology.