28.12.2023

«What else?»

Dear readers,

Plants have a tough life. They can’t escape from their predators. Unfortunately, this is also the case with agricultural crops. That’s why crop protection products were developed. They provide protection against caterpillars, beetles, aphids, fungi, and competing weeds. They safeguard harvests and help to save resources. However, there are conflicts of interest. Hence the old adage when using crop protection products: as little as possible, as much as necessary.

Of course, using crop protection products requires careful management of the risks. Constant innovation is also necessary. The newspaper NZZ am Sonntag recently reported on an exciting research application. In the article, Meredith Schuman, a specialist in plant fragrances at the University of Zurich, says that “each plant species has its own typical odor”. When plants are threatened by predators, the scents they give off are particularly intense. The researcher is attempting to decipher the “nervous sweat” emitted by plants. The concept is an enticing one. It can help ensure that pesticides are used earlier and in a more targeted manner. We’ve summarized the report and put it in context in a media review. This highly promising approach is not entirely new, but it is a good thing to be constantly on the lookout for alternatives and to ask yourself: “What else?”. Nonetheless, any new method requires extensive field tests to show how scalable the proposed solutions are. What’s more, any technology must be economically viable if it is to find its way out of the laboratory and into widespread use.

So, it will take some time before farmers will be able to use the scents given off by plants to monitor their fields. However, such promising research approaches are what innovation is based on. If these approaches are not realized as marketable products, researchers are just playing to the crowd. And it is in this exact regard that Switzerland has something to offer worldwide. Not only is Swiss research in some fields at the pinnacle, the dual education system and the teaching provide us with an institutional advantage in the drive to get from scientific discovery to practical implementation. Pragmatism is in our genes.

We should therefore remain pragmatic and open in how we deal with new discoveries in genetic research for all areas of life. The excellent interview with Jennifer Doudna in the Tages-Anzeiger on the potential of genome editing is a real eye-opener. Swisscanto in particular should also read this: The investment foundations of the Swiss Cantonal banks even exclude human genetic engineering from the “Sustainable” investment category. Without asking “What else?” - when new genomic procedures can combat sickle cell anemia or AIDS and produce vaccines?

Roman Mazzotta from Syngenta therefore warns against ideological blinkers when it comes to the location attractiveness that keeps innovation in the Basel region: "Crop protection products are pilloried across the board for ideological reasons, while new technologies such as genome editing, which could reduce the use of precisely these crop protection products, are rejected at the same time. This is not only perplexing, but also slows down innovation."

Even when criticizing the plant protection practiced today, the question must always be: Do we have a practicable, more sustainable alternative? And if so, are we prepared to accept new conflicts of interest? Or, to paraphrase George Clooney: "What else?"

Innovation is based on new approaches. However, in practice it takes more than approaches that sound good. It takes real alternatives that bring something to farmers. Castles in the air in the future will not feed hungry mouths in the present. On the contrary: A lack of crop protection products will result in failures like with this year’s potato harvest.

Questions surrounding conflicts of interest and alternatives were also discussed in this year’s “Brennpunkt Nahrung” [Focus on Food] conference. A gap is opening up between consumer demands for regional produce and the falling level of self-sufficiency. And no wonder. Farmers are facing increasing difficulty protecting their crops. Meanwhile, the steady decline in self-sufficiency continues.

Media fear-mongering also has something to do with the lack of plant protection products. The media stories find fertile ground. Three years ago, a study claimed that plant protection products were to blame for an increased incidence of brain tumors among children in the "Zurich Weinland" and "Bernese Seeland". Experts working on behalf of the Federal authorities now conclude differently. These include Lothar Aicher, a respected toxicologist from the University of Basel. The results could also have arisen by chance: According to Aicher, to date, there has been no known, scientifically proven link between pesticide use and cancer. Of course, correlation and causality are two different things.

Andreas Hensel, President of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin, has this to say in general about the concerns surrounding pesticides: “There is no evidence that anyone in Germany has poisoned themselves by consuming foods that have been treated with crop protection products. Nonetheless, a lot of people are afraid of doing so.” This despite extremely strict limits: ETH Toxicologist Georg Aichinger quotes Paracelsus in an article from CH-Media when he says: “Only the dose makes the poison.” He goes on to add that the limits and maximum levels include a wide safety margin. They are typically 100 to 1000 times below any potentially hazardous exposure level for humans.

A world that had do without crop protection, professional seeds, and fertilizers would be a scarier place to be. The former ETH President, Emeritus Professor Dr. Lino Guzzella, recently had this to say in a lecture that was published on YouTube: “If it weren’t for our use of artificial fertilizers, half of humanity would die today.” While there is enough nitrogen, it is bound to air. It would take a lot of energy to use the nitrogen as a fertilizer. “The process discovered by German scientists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch at the beginning of the 20th century was called, among other things “bread from the air”, and even now, over a hundred years later, is considered one of humanity’s most important discoveries,” writes Beat Gygi in Weltwoche. Gygi summarized Guzzella’s must-see presentation at the Progress Foundation in Weltwoche.

So, “what else”? There are also newer, innovative solutions aimed at harnessing nitrogen from the air. Bacteria in biostimulants can also supply nitrogen from the air to plants via roots and leaves in a form that they can absorb. Such biostimulants help with abiotic stress from sources such as temperature extremes or dryness. They promote the absorption of nutrients and soil life, as well as improving plant vitality. See our glossary text “Biologicals” for more. However, innovations like these also need to prove themselves in widescale use. Further research into usage also remains important.

We learn: progress means not being too hasty to throw the old away in the dumpster of history. Rather, we should first seriously ask ourselves: “What else?” New solutions must first be tried and tested in practice, and they must be scalable. And they are always associated with conflicts of interest. Even as we remain open to new technologies, a reality check is needed.

With our best wishes for the coming year 2024!

The swiss-food editorial team