EUROPEAN-SEED.COM I EUROPEAN SEED I 29 problem with deep historical roots and deeply held beliefs and no small amount of hatred in the mix. It was thought that nothing could be done to break the cycle of violence. But in 1998 a few weeks before my first child was born, there was the Northern Ireland referendum which accepted what is now known as the Good Friday agreement with a yes vote >70%! We saw former enemies respectfully shaking hands. My point is not to trivialise the Northern Ireland peace pro- cess by drawing analogy to seeds issues but to examine what we can learn from this extremely serious example of opponents finding (sometimes uneasy) consensus. Did the two sides change their opinions? Fundamentally no. Is there still tension? Yes, and we can see that again in the dis- cussions around borders that are raised by Brexit and occasional incidents of unrest. However, a majority of people could see after so many years of on and off negotiation, mediation, interspersed with ceasefires and atrocities that there was a better way than focussing on hatred, mistrust and violence. HIGH RISK OF FAILURE Staying with the status quo of opposing camps with regard to breeding innovation is really not a risk-free scenario for society. Each missed opportunity also misses the future opportunities that would be built on it. However, as yet, that does not appear to be the consensus despite significantly improved understand- ing of climate change, population growth and sustainable agri- cultural practice. It seems only rarely acknowledged that the current state of affairs of slow innovation in plants and extreme precaution is in fact creating an extremely high risk of failure to address both environmental and social harm from inadequate sustainable agricultural productivity. The regulators and courts speak of the ‘risks’ from transgenic GMO. Doesn’t nearly 30 years of use outside the EU show that such risks are being over esti- mated? Complacency is easy when the supermarket shelves are stacked full. It should not be forgotten that only as recently as our parents’ generation people’s experience of food security in Europe was very different. LISTEN TO THE OPPOSITION Perhaps there is something else at play for the ‘anti’ pressure groups and we must listen harder to their opposition to under- stand and respond to it. Maybe small organic farmers feel that their way of life is threatened. They talk of ‘monster’ companies, ‘dangerous’ GMOs, intellectual property ‘privatising’ our source of food, patenting ‘nature’, loss of food ‘sovereignty’, ‘industrial’ farming to quote a few. These are very effective messages, easy to understand and clear evidence of people feeling disempow- ered and fearful of exploitation by faceless powerful corporates. For me it is actually offensive to be challenged as not caring for the environment when the seed sector has continually deliv- ered more from less, improved sustainability and also is inno- vating products that, whilst market driven, are fully aligned with societal goals. Exporting European food demand to more vulnerable regions and economies because of misplaced fears restricting domestic productivity is surely a morally questionable result of today’s EU policy. Can we not address these fears? Small farmers, organic farmers are also our valued customers, they must be free to choose how much ‘industrial’ approach they take to their farm- ing. However, they are also private entrepreneurs and so they must also be economically viable and respect sustainable agri- culture goals. Companies have no strategic business goal that wishes the end of small family farms, rural social cohesion and premium opportunities for small farmers such as organic brand- ing. So we can help them, with the same respectful approach to how we serve all of our customers then maybe we are not monsters but partners. We will never agree that plant breeding innovation should be a public-sector activity as history shows that without seed mar- keting regulations and intellectual property frameworks, markets fail. People go hungry and stable peaceful economic development is halted. So, let’s focus on what we can do together rather than what we can’t do. Abandon entrenched outdated thinking. From our perspective, it is obvious that we need to gain soci- etal understanding of the basic human need for plant breeding innovation for our sustainable wellbeing on planet earth and this is most effectively delivered by a market driven private sector. “Plant variety protection and breeding exemption stimulate innovation and must remain the primary form of intellectual property rights in plant breeding.” THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE For many people, this would be a huge step in change of outlook and as such will never be forced on people by regulators against their will. Let’s hope it will not be forced on people by famine or war as it was in the past in Europe and is still the case in many regions of the world where market failure for plant innovation still exists. Hard line anti-corporate, anti-science believers have a right to choose to live according to their ideals! It doesn’t appear to be a winning formula to belittle someone’s life philosophy and tell them to be more rational (in case any of us has tried that approach). If we continue to escalate conflict, positions just become more entrenched. People with these opinions, however, do not have a right to force their beliefs on others and also have an obligation to respect others’ points of view who see the slow uptake of innovation as a material risk of harm to citizens and the environment. Whilst we live in times of relative peace and plenty, it therefore is our responsibility as the innovators to be persuasive and reach out to others. What we have proved to our frustration as science based organisations is that providing ever more detailed legal argu- mentation and technical scientific explanations has proven time after time to be ineffective in influencing opinion and even has been directly counterproductive in terms of gaining trust.