“Let me show you the data” - A story about earning trust

The other day, I was at the grocery store and could not help overhearing a conversation between a woman and her probably 6-7 year-old son. “We still need apples, can you grab some please?” As the little boy heads towards the closest apples on the shelf, the mother intervenes. “No sweetie, not these – these are bad for your health, they have pesticides on them. Better take the organic ones over there.”

Science over Science-Fiction

Sadly, similar conversations probably take place a hundred times every day, in many countries around the world. When it comes to something as important as our food, people don’t want to take any risks. They want their food to be free from anything not natural, and pesticides in particular. It’s not my intention to criticize organic food, but there are numerous reasons why we need pesticides. What I am concerned about is this overwhelming perception that using crop protection products is bad for humans and the planet, and that we have allowed misleading marketing, inaccurate media reporting, social media and other influencers to guide consumers’ understanding on the safety and risks of different food production practices. Although the scientist in me cries out loud, it is probably valid to ask why we as scientists left it to the non-scientists to define what’s safe and what’s not. Somewhere along the way, science-based information and decision-making has gotten lost in the critical choices we make in what to feed our families.

Most people have no idea that, on average, about 1,200 registration studies are required before a new chemical active ingredient can be approved for use on crops, or that only one out of every 160,000 candidates screened will ever be commercialized. We and others in the industry look to discover products that create no undue risk to human health or the environment and yet provide effective control of insect pests, plant diseases and productivity-robbing weeds. Those few that pass have met a very high safety hurdle, set by government regulators, as part of an approval process that can take three or more years in each and every country where the product will be registered for use. In some geographies, common products we consume every day like coffee and alcohol would not pass these stringent safety standards!

Lifting the Curtain

In 2017, Bayer embarked on a journey to address common misperceptions around crop protection products. As the first agricultural company to do so worldwide, we allowed public access to full in-depth study reports via a dedicated Transparency platform. By sharing what was once only shared with regulatory authorities, we took a first step towards connecting the public with our scientific community. Since then, we have been leading the way on industry transparency efforts: To date, we have made information available for 28 active substances, including all 107 Bayer-owned glyphosate safety study reports that were submitted as part of the last regulatory authorization process in the European Union. As part of our company’s overall commitment to raising the bar in transparency, sustainability and engagement, we are now heading into the program’s next phase. In 2020, we will incorporate three new pillars to the program: 1. OpenLabs – a visitor experience that offers first-hand insights into how our scientists conduct safety studies, 2. access to regulatory submission documents for genetically modified (GM) seeds, as well as 3. background materials on GM seeds and plant breeding. I encourage you to read more about the new program components.

Explaining safety studies is certainly a challenge in a fast-paced world that wants simple answers. Because “science” is never truly settled, responses to complex issues that seem to be disputable are actually part of a continuous process that describes the normal path of scientific research. However, what we can do is help demystify the process. And be a trusted partner in the conversation again.