But it covered little new ground and offered slender hope of any meeting of minds. Mr Shapiro, who spoke from Chicago via a satellite link, said he wanted to abandon debate with his critics and to move instead to dialogue. The underlying premise of dialogue is that there are both real benefits from biotechnology and also real concerns about its use. The benefits, Mr Shapiro said, were for agriculture, the environment and for consumers. Present agricultural technologies are not inherently sustainable or able to guarantee food security.
Biotechnology can improve productivity and, for example, reduce pesticide use.
Biotechnology can help to reduce water use, soil erosion and emissions that add to climate change. And GM plants could offer gains to consumers with added nutritional value or with pharmaceutical properties incorporated into them. Promise of biotechnology Mr Shapiro acknowledged the concerns biotechnology aroused in terms of safety, environmental impacts, its effects on farmers and consumer choice. Peter Melchett urged Monsanto to adopt a new business strategy Peter Melchett, for Greenpeace UK, said Monsanto's fundamental error had been its failure to understand the way public values were developing. It was not environmentalists and the media who had turned opinion against GMOs, he said.