PACIFIC BASIN ECONOMIC COUNCIL
MAIN PAGE | EVENTS & PROGRAMS | 2001 | IGM | SPEECHES | JOHN FALLOON

Additional Info: Policy Statements Speeches Photos Speakers & Noted Participants Featured Biographies Registration Media Information Conference Statement Regional Vitality in the 21st Century April 6-10, 2001 — Tokyo, Japan Mr. John Falloon Director Bowlands Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm reminded of the old political story of the politician that didn't get on with his press secretary and fired him just before he went to a meeting. He had the speech all given to him by his press secretary and it's well known that he never read it and never did any work on his speeches and got them all written and I'm feeling a bit like that too. I wish I had somebody to write it. Having said that the politician got there and "Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to tell you the main issues involved in Biotechnology, they are these…", turned over the page "You're on your own now, you bugger." Because he had sacked his press secretary and he had left him too. I take a slightly different situation, the other two speakers have just about said it all so I'm going to take a slightly different perspective. I've been working through this presentation for some time as you can all imagine talking to young people particularly because we happened to have a wedding in Hong Kong of a son of mine and the young people to it came from all over the world and two older ones. There's a profound ignorance and profound suspicion of biotechnology and both those are very important. I think we really have been, those of us who have some knowledge of the subject, been talking to ourselves for too long. Then I picked up the newspaper as I came here and the stories used to be, in Britain anyway, the Royal Family's Peccadillo and food safety. Now food safety is the top of the tops and biotech is the top of the pops and human cloning is the very top of the pops. I just wanted to take a couple of quotes. From USA Today, Friday, Editorial, "Human Cloning Trial Nears As Company Spurns Rules." And here's the advocate, Brigitte Boisselier, the Director of Clonaid: "I believe that one day, we will reach eternal life through this technique so I'm also fighting for the right of future reborn or should we say the resurrected." She also says that, "I will fight as much is as humanly possible so that the freedom of scientific enquiry and the freedom to make a personal reproductive choice are fully respected." Now I think most of you know the arguments. The USA Today takes an editorial stance which talks about the potential survivability that has occurred with animal cloning and suggest that perhaps when somebody has to decide whether they keep a human clone alive that is deformed, you start to get into a considerable ethical issues as we can all imagine. However, the reality is it will go on. And then there's that famous author Alvin Toffler, in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Heidi and Alvin Toffler, he really blows my mind: "It is now clear that the entire digital revolution is only the first phase of an even larger, longer process. If you think the revolution is over, get ready to be shocked again as information technology fully converges with and is in turn remade by the biological revolution." Now that little robot last night with this human gene chip in it could have actually played the violin as well as dance and it's not beyond the possibility for the future. Whether it's going to have soul or nor, it's another matter. Science fiction is coming alive in our generation and that is going to be, in my view, one of the biggest ethical challenges we face since God knows when, the foundation of all our various religions that populate the world at the moment. And yet, I think it's very clear that science will go on, that countries like China which has about 12 million hectors of crop and US which has about the same as transgenic crops and we've heard from Stephan the extent of that, that for the last 25 years, we've had gene transplants and bacteria to produce safer insulin amongst other things. And relatively speaking the society is full of genetically transplanted organisms and really have we suffered? And yet of course what's happened with the suspicion of scientists, and that partly is born out by the sort of food scares that we have had, which I think are sort of symptoms of an affluent society more than anything else because more people die of food poisoning in France from unpasturized cheese than are ever going to die of BSE. Touch wood. But it's also I think due to the fact that science is not an exact, you can't say that there is a 100 percent chance that that science is right today, no scientist will ever say that. There's no such thing as zero risk in anything. The consequence of that is scientists will always say that well I was wrong or some scientist was wrong in the past. Look at BSE as an example of that, the British scientists believe firmly that there was no chance of BSE going to humans and they didn't believe that the first cases were anything to do with the animals at all. They've had to change their tune. Now they may be believing that it's passed on through the maternal side, through semen or whatever rather than just from feeding. So the second issue of lack of confidence is with corporates. And you don't need too many examples, selling tobacco to the third world, environmental effects, luckily PBEC is an example as taking a front foot on this issue and on the environmental issue and going out in front and saying "We are trying to get responsible people, this organization has an attitude that says it's going to do things the right way." And I think it's commendable that PBEC is taking some initiatives to improve the image of corporates but talking to the young people, most of them work or indirectly depend in one way or another on various corporates around the world, you got to watch them, they're only interested in the short term profits, etc. etc. That's the image we have. And then the third issue of course is my former profession, I hesitate, I say quickly politicians. The transparency of modern life means that no longer are there words for XX as there used to be, that's why I left. But the reality is that none of us are believed: a) because we can't be absolute and b) because people do tell what they want to say, what they will think people want to hear. Then of course there is what happened. Now there are solutions and I want to say before I go any further that I've got a document here which was presented to the royal commission in genetic manipulation which is being held in New Zealand in a public forum. Evidence taken from both sides or all sides of the argument, industries have combined to formed what's called the Lars Sciences Institute which has presented its case. There's been some excellent debate and exposure from all sides, Green Peace has been there, different protagonists have been there and have had to present their cases in front of legal counsel so there's been cross-examination. There's been some interesting debate there and they have not produced their finding yet but I want to pass this round for you to have a look at because it sort of adds to what Stephan has said but may give you something to take home as well. And if you get bored with me you can carry on reading it. The reality is that there's a lot of good work going on, it's essential we do and in my considered opinion, we now have what's called a global civilization and if you look back in time, every other civilization has died. Go back to the Incas, go to the Romans, go to the Semerians, the Mongolians, whatever you like, for one reason or another, generally because they were not sustainable in the way in which they operated. They became too comfortable, they forgot about looking after the environment around them, etc, etc, etc. They got taken over by the other people who weren't so worried about [...] and so on, they've died. And if you look at the world today, it's on the way out. It'll run out of energy in perhaps a hundred years, maybe we'll get some alternative sources, hopefully we will. Our seas are being over fished, our land is being over exploited, our forests are disappearing, etc, etc. We're unsustainable and I believe biotechnology provides a way in which helping the human survive, the land survive and the whole human race prosper. We've had a lot of examples of various things that are produced by biotechnology but I want to now concentrate on just for a couple of minutes and then let's have discussion, is I think that there's going to be a great need to have biotechnology, genetic manipulation under international trading rules. If you look at another one of the articles I read in the last few days in The Wall Street Journal, they've tested twenty products and found that had none GMO or GMO free claims for labeling, eleven of them turned out to be genetically manipulated by one means or another. And of course, there are some red faces no doubt with companies that use those products. There is a great danger if you take the modern sophisticated cappuccino kids society, they're going to demand the sort of labeling that's happening in an involuntary way now. There has to be some control, some international rules that actually specify what can be done, otherwise it will be ad-hoc. We've fought long and hard to get the SPS agreement through the WTO Uruguay round and it has been pretty effective in bringing cases to court whether it's hormones in beef of whatever. At least there are some basic international rules which people can use and if countries don't oblige them, then it's possible to go to the GATT panel and appeal. That's essential I think for the future. One of the problems is that the affluent society will react in a political way and you only have to see that sort of way in which this argument is developing to see that the [...] are in the ascendancy and it's no doubt they are and the scientists are in descendency. And we could drive underground the sort of research that is necessary to make this product safe to develop the next era of them and to make sure that humans accept them. If we don't have proper international standards and rules to allow the trade in these products in a way that satisfy the consumers. In that sense I think, we've got to actually listen very carefully to the opposition and not just listen to those of us who are committed to this new development of science which is so exciting for the future. I'm reminded also that one of the things that governments can do is adopt a precautionary approach to where they believe the environment is at risk, they therefore can still comply with WTO rules. So therefore you can get the Europeans banning GMOs and if you look at what's happened in Britain, it's pretty inevitable. Fortunately, Tony Blair has come out slightly in favor having started on the other side of the argument. With a bit of luck, some senses prevailing at the top level but it certainly isn't at the consumer level, at the supermarket level, etc, etc. That's one of the grave risks we face. I think that countries like China, poor countries India and others that desperately need to feed their people can see the advantages of the environment are going to go full boar ahead. So the world is going to be awash with GMOs in no time at all but let's try and make sure we also have the rights of the science involved in the major developed countries as well. Otherwise I think we run the risk of losing the opportunity to have a more equal world, a happier society and a freerer society from the environmental degradation that we see. There's an old saying: "There's those that make it happen, there's those that watch it happen and there's those that wonder what happen." Let's not be in the latter category. Thank you.