«Who is afraid of the evil GMOs?»
Jürg Vollmer is editor-in-chief of the magazine «die grüne». He advocates the authorisation of breeding methods such as genome editing. In this way, the advantages of wild and cultivated plants can be combined in a meaningful way.
Tuesday, November 2, 2021
Content in German
Modernes Genome Editing ist kein Teufelszeug, sondern die logische Fortsetzung der Mutation und Mutagenese in der Pflanzenzucht. Pflanzengenetiker verändern das Erbgut mit der «Genschere» CRISPR/Cas so präzise, dass man auch von «Gen-Chirurgie» spricht. Ohne artenfremdes Genmaterial hinzuzufügen (= transgen-frei).
CRISPR/Cas unterscheidet sich in den Zielen und im Ergebnis nicht von der traditionellen Pflanzenzucht: Sie verändert ein Gen-«Schnipsel» und macht damit Nutzpflanzen ertragreicher und resistenter gegen Krankheitserreger und Schädlinge. Und das ist nötig: Denn die heutigen – auf hohen Ertrag gezüchteten – Nutzpflanzen sind genetisch verarmt.
Mit CRISPR/Cas werden Nutzpflanzen gezüchtet mit den Vorteilen der robusten (und oft auch schmackhafteren) Wildpflanzen und den Vorteilen von Kulturpflanzen, die Schädlingen trotzen, Pestizide einsparen und dabei mehr Ertrag liefern. Es wird Zeit, dass wir unsere Angst vor den «bösen GVO» überwinden und die Chance nutzen, die sie bieten.
Jürg Vollmer ist Chefredaktor der Zeitschrift «Die Grüne». Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst in der Ausgabe 10/2021.
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.