Non-GMO requirement absent in Roundtable on Responsible Soy

By Jochen Koester
With its policy in the Roundtable for Responsible Soy (RTRS), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has incurred resentment and criticism from around the world, not only from other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but also from partners in trade and industry who have worked for years on sustainable soy certification. The principles of the RTRS were recently passed�with the non-GMO issue excluded.

Undoubtedly, NGOs are important in civil society, and in democratic countries they exercise significant influence. This is good and even political opponents would not seriously want to restrict this right. Almost all rights, however, go hand in hand with responsibilities. This is even more so if the holder of a right has made any promises or enjoys a particularly high reputation.

WWF calls RTRS �technology neutral�

At the moment, responsibility shows on the agenda of many NGOs�more or less voluntarily: within the RTRS the WWF gets involved with Big Business. That in itself is not objectionable. However, the question arises whether the WWF presents itself as a responsibly acting partner. For, as was decided in late May by the RTRS General Assembly in Brazil, non-GMO production is not part of the principles and criteria of a responsible soybean production. By pointing out that the RTRS is �technology neutral,� the WWF has cleared the entire GMO issue off the table�incurring the wrath of other NGOs.

Basel Criteria

As early as March 2004, WWF Switzerland had undertaken the laudable step together with the Swiss retailer Coop to launch the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production. The two organizations wanted to counter the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest and other conservation areas. Besides environmental, social and legal demands, the Basel Criteria call for a production without GMOs�to protect biodiversity. Also, to the vast majority of Europeans, as well as many other nations, not growing genetically modified crops is a central pillar of sustainability.

Two certifiers used the Basel Criteria as the base for their own industry standards; one certifier has certified tons of Brazil�s soybean harvest each year since 2006 according to its ProTerra standard.

First shipments of sustainably produced�and non-GMO�soy

In June 2006, WWF Switzerland and Coop promoted the fact that a major Swiss importer received the first 1,200 tons of ProTerra-certified soy meal shipped to Europe. In July, the WWF published a statement announcing that both industry standards had been found compliant with the Basel Criteria, although one of them, for omission of the non-GMO requirement, would not be compatible with �Basel.�

One would assume that WWF and all parties involved would be happy that a sustainability standard is successfully implemented and would be eager to see a growing number of suppliers and buyers in this market.

Roundtable for Responsible Soy

Unfortunately this is not the case. The WWF is reviewing its principles and processes, such as the multi-stakeholder process, the roundtable, etc. And why should one consider a preference for non-GMO food production that has been expressed by three quarters of the European population? The Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production had been commissioned with funding from WWF and Coop and also with Swiss taxpayers� money. On 38 pages, they deliver a brilliant guidance, based on which two industry standards are set up in the subsequent years. This, in turn, leads to the year 2009 where over 15% of the total Brazilian soy crop is certified non-GMO to a standard compliant with the Basel Criteria and shipped to buyers in Europe.

Despite this, the WWF supports and promotes the Roundtable for Responsible Soy, founded in late 2004 in London and has now grown with the joining of major agribusiness companies, such as ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Monsanto, Syngenta, as well as with the energy players BP and Shell.

WWF secrecy is the problem

It is not the WWF�s involvement in the RTRS that is irritating! It is the organization�s secrecy regarding a smoothly and very successfully functioning platform that was launched by the WWF itself only a few years before. WWF is acting irresponsibly not only towards members of the Executive Board of the RTRS, but also towards new RTRS members and�last not least�its own partners in the Basel Criteria platform. Sustainability�with or without transgenics?

This author knows a significant number of European food manufacturers and brand owners who are by now distinctly confused by the RTRS. Now what�does the GM-free status they have implemented count as an element of sustainability or does it not,? Put the question differently: Is the WWF still the reliable partner of industry members as it has presented itself for decades? Or is it enabling agribusiness greenwashing?

(Jochen Koester is the founder of TraceConsult. He can be reached at jk@traceconsult.ch)