«The fear of genetically modified plants is unwarranted»
Genetically modified plants have garnered a negative reputation, but with new methods, they can hardly be distinguished from conventionally bred plants, as Anke Fossgreen argues in the 'Tages-Anzeiger.'
Thursday, May 25, 2023
The umbrella organization of organic agriculture, Bio Suisse, unanimously decided at its delegates' meeting on Tuesday to continue to refrain from using genetic engineering. The result is not surprising, but disappointing. It demonstrates that organic farmers are disregarding the advancements made in modern breeding research and perpetuating the negative perception of genetically modified food.
Ironically, it is precisely future genetically modified plants that offer possibilities that are important for organic farming as well. Modified plants can, for example, be resistant to diseases, reducing the need for pesticides. They can also be more durable, thereby reducing food waste, or they can withstand drought, which is crucial in the face of climate change.
However, why do many consumers refuse to eat genetically modified plants or animals fed with such plants? These plants, such as wheat, maize, and soybeans, are viewed with suspicion because their genetic makeup has been altered in the laboratory. Yet the fear of 'foreign genes' is unfounded. When we consume an apple, we ingest the fruit's genes; when we eat bread, we consume the grain's genes, and when we have a schnitzel, we consume the genes of a pig. Does this make us sick or alter us in any way? No. During the digestive process, our bodies break down not only proteins, carbohydrates, and fats but also foreign genetic material, utilizing it to sustain ourselves.
The discussion is no longer about the modified plant but the process by which it is produced.
Furthermore, genetic engineering has made significant strides. Today's genetically engineered plants are virtually indistinguishable from conventional breeds. This is achieved through genome editing techniques like the Crispr/CAS method, where the genetic material is slightly modified and optimized, akin to using a scalpel.
Those who previously felt uneasy about consuming genetically modified plants due to their perceived difference from conventionally bred plants no longer have a valid argument. Therefore, the discussion is no longer about the modified plant itself but rather the process by which it is produced.
As a reminder, since 1964, genetic modifications have been introduced into the genome of plants in Europe and elsewhere using methods that may sound alarming. Plants were bombarded with radioactive substances in fields and gardens, and now in laboratories. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 3300 plant varieties have been created through this so-called mutagenesis and have been approved in 70 countries. Some of these varieties are still used and consumed today, including many types of grain, rice, and citrus fruits, such as red grapefruit, which is also sold as an organic product.
In comparison, modern genetic engineering techniques are remarkably gentle and elegant.
While this may initially sound concerning, these plant varieties are not inherently radioactive simply because radiation was used in their production. Similarly, new plant varieties created through mutagenesis are not chemically poisoned, as the mutagenesis process can also be triggered by chemicals. These methods, perceived as 'natural' breeding, are employed to create new varieties.
In comparison, the methods currently discussed to enhance the properties of plants through modern genome editing techniques are remarkably gentle and elegant.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the taste and nutrient content of plants can also be specifically optimized through these methods. Let us embrace the opportunity to experience these new varieties.
Kindly note:
We, a non-native editorial team value clear and faultless communication. At times we have to prioritize speed over perfection, utilizing tools, that are still learning.
We are deepL sorry for any observed stylistic or spelling errors.
Anke Fossgreen has been leading Tamedia's knowledge team since 2022. She has been working as a science editor at Tamedia since 2000. During her doctoral thesis, she conducted research on Alzheimer's disease. Her interests lie in biology, health, nutrition, medicine, and exercise. This opinion piece was first published in the "Tages-Anzeiger" on April 18.
Related articles
PFAS regulation in Switzerland: Not faster, but better
Some people also call PFAS ‘forever chemicals’. Their use must be regulated as wisely as possible. To do this, the federal government first needs to do precise groundwork, according to Stefan Brupbacher, Urs Furrer and Stephan Mumenthaler.
When surveys create fear
Surveys on technologies such as genetic engineering often focus on risks and spread panic instead of promoting a balanced discussion of the pros and cons. A striking example is the environmental indicator of the Federal Statistical Office. Social scientist Angela Bearth is highly critical of the survey. The public debate on new technologies such as genetic engineering or 5G mobile communications is often conducted emotionally. Current surveys encourage this by stirring up fears instead of enabling an objective consideration of risks and benefits. One example of this is the environmental indicator, a survey conducted by the Federal Statistical Office (FSO) on the subject of hazards. Using simplistic questions, it generates distorted perceptions. In an article on the progressive Agrarwende.ch platform of the Eco-Progressive Network association, social scientist Angela Bearth addresses the issue.
False study on crop protection poisoning influences political decisions
In recent years, the alarming news has been making the rounds that 385 million people suffer from crop protection poisoning every year. The claim comes from a study by critics of pesticides. It has been taken up and spread by numerous media and government institutions. The problem: the number is wrong. The study does not even allow for the conclusion, which is why the scientific publisher in question has since withdrawn the study. Nevertheless, it has influenced politics and continues to be cited frequently.
The ideological misuse of «scientific» studies
Science serves as a basis for political decisions, including in nature conservation. However, a key question is: how trustworthy are the underlying studies and data? An article in the «NZZ am Sonntag» and the explanations provided by Quarks offer revealing perspectives on the quality of scientific studies and the possible misuse of figures.