Case Study: Robert

Robert is a senior spokesman for the Natural Law Party, and the interview took place over lunch at one of their centres, Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire. It was not possible to tape record this interview, so no quotations are given.

The stance of the Natural Law Party on genetically modified food is a logical derivation of their beliefs, which Robert was able to explain in eloquently. The detail of this logical structure is rather beyond the scope of this thesis, located as it is outside the variants of environmental thought discussed in the theoretical chapters. However, its logical consistency is a model application of Naess’s methodology for creating normative structures, and during the interview, it was apparent that Robert was able to move between values and actions while still maintaining this consistency. The ease with which he was able to do this indicated that this was not a process he was struggling through following my prompting in the interview, but one which he had thought through in detail, and which was highly relevant to him.

The Natural Law Party are unusual within the debate surrounding genetically modified food, in that they are not involved in the food industry, nor are they an environmental or consumer group. However, during the period of the fieldwork, their supporters were perceived by interviewees representing food retailers to be the most vocal opponents of genetically modified food. Their standing within the wider debate is unusual, in that to a large extent they do not fit with any of the established ‘camps’. Interviewees from industry tended to find environmental NGOs irritating, but were able to understand their perspective, and, albeit grudgingly concede some credibility to them. The Natural Law Party however is looked upon by other interviewees, with a mixture of amusement, incomprehension and irritation, and is perceived (negatively) as a ‘cult’. The Natural Law Party is aware of this, and Robert explains how they do not use their normative structure publicly to defend their case, although it remains its philosophical underpinning, but use conventional science. This is rationalised by Robert to be the only arguments which will be listened to, both within the ‘expert’ debate and by the wider public, while still adequate to achieve their goal of a ban on genetic modification in agriculture. To this end, they have recruited sympathetic scientists to advise them, from which they have developed a well researched, logically consistent scientific argument which stands apart from, but complements their normative structure.

Whether or not Robert’s philosophy can be interpreted to be ecocentrist is problematic without a thorough review of the literature published by the Party, but pervading Robert’s explanation of their normative structure was the idea of the sacredness of and respect for nature, which I felt at the time of the interview to be profoundly ecocentric.

Robert makes a useful comparison to Henry (section 5.6.2) who derives anthropocentric values from a religious basis. He also illustrates Naess’s contention that an ecocentric world view can be derived from many starting points, and along with Anne, helps demonstrate that ecocentrism need not arise from as explicit an environmentalist agenda as John’s.

The notoriety of the Natural Law Party among retailers meant that they were invariably mentioned by them as a source of irritation:

Brian: [...] but when you’re dealing with people like Greenpeace, erm, when

you’re dealing with people like Natural Law Party, lets get it right, I don’t mind dealing with Greenpeace, they’re all right. They know what they’re about, and they don’t lie1. When you’re talking about the Natural Law Party, who are actually... they’re almost off the end of the scale, erm...

Brian: But they’ve already made up their minds, and whatever I write back to

them, I’m not going to change their minds. So I don’t see it as my job to try and change their minds, or influence them. Because I’m not going to succeed.

Brian’s comments about the intransigence of Natural Law Party members, which understandably irritates him is a function of their world view. Genetic modification as a purely technical issue, as it is for Brian, is something which can be negotiated and discussed, particularly in the light of new technical information. However, for Robert to compromise on his stance against genetic modification, he must also compromise the beliefs which led to that stance, but these are beliefs which are so important to Robert, changing them will not come about following a discussion with a food retailer, if ever. For Robert the technical issues so important to Brian are almost irrelevant; any relevance they may have is tactical rather than intrinsic, whereas for Brian, the metaphysical issues so important to Robert are irrelevant. This clash of two world views illustrates Naess’s distinction between the deep and the shallow.

1

This is a reference to Tryptophan, a Japanese produced food supplement which, following a change of manufacturing process to introduce the use of genetically modified bacteria, killed 31 US consumers, and injured more than 1000 others. The official FDA enquiry ruled that the genetic modification had not caused the deaths and injuries; it was a lapse in more general food safety precautions. However, the circumstances of the enquiry were problematic, with key evidence for the enquiry being destroyed shortly before it was needed, making proof that genetic modification was the cause of the problem impossible to find. Opponents of genetic engineering have interpreted this to mean that the producers of Tryptophan wished to hide the cause of the contamination, and that in the absence of evidence, the FDA ruling reflected their desire to promote genetic engineering. In the absence of evidence, no definitive conclusion is possible, but it is clear that this source of conflict between retailers and the Natural Law Party arises from different interpretations of the same information, rather than either side lying. See Westra 1998 p. 82 for more detailed coverage of this issue.