Opinions
Olaf Deininger

«One-third organic farming does not solve the problem»

Pitting organic farming against conventional farming methods will get us nowhere, writes Olaf Deininger. Instead, a great deal of investment must go into new technologies in order to allow for a transition from industrial farming to intelligent farming. Only then will the differences between organic and conventional farming be consigned to the past.

Thursday, February 3, 2022

Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir has declared organic farming to be the new guiding principle to follow – on many occasions, but most recently in a press release this past week. Nevertheless, Özdemir should rethink this topic. «The German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture is making organic farming its guiding principle for sustainable agriculture. This means that the aim is for the amount of land dedicated to organic farming to have increased by 30% by 2030,» commented the Agriculture Minister this week. Many people may think that this is a step in the right direction and is justified by the well-known, largely relevant and documented arguments regarding the environmentally negative effects on the climate, the consumption of resources, and externalized costs. However, there are others who consider this guiding principle to be dubious, are worried about food safety and a dramatically falling level of self-sufficiency (which must be compensated for by more environmentally unfriendly products from abroad), and lament a false cult surrounding the (overrated) ecological compatibility of organic farming.

But no matter how you see the situation, you have to ask yourself «is it all so simple»? Black-and-white thinking – «more organic farming» versus «organic farming is pointless» If we want to leave the old and unproductive arguments behind us (and we have to do so in order to get the problems at hand solved), then we have to ask the question differently. We would have to ask ourselves although organic farming might be a step in the right direction, would this step be enough? Would organic farming solve all our problems? I would answer these questions by saying «not really»! This is because organic farming and conventional farming have one thing in common: they work predominantly according to industrial methods – and in so doing (currently) use relatively unintelligent techniques. For example, crops are not worked using special methods for each variety and all livestock are lumped together as one. Everything is way too crass. This is an area in which we ought to be more specific. There already exists new, mostly digital technologies that allow for more precise processes to be introduced, thus ensuring, for example, that pesticides can be used in a more targeted fashion, with farmers only needing to use 10 percent of the volumes they previously used.

Lightweight, automated and solar-powered machines can make mechanical processes more affordable and profitable again. Systems that work with artificial intelligence can monitor animal welfare, identify illnesses during breeding and rearing, and allow animals to be treated earlier and using preventative techniques – and not just once half of the herd has been infected.

We are currently living to see the transition from industrial agriculture to intelligent agriculture. If we think this through to the end, there will be no differences between organic and conventional agriculture in a few years’ time. And it is in exactly this kind of intelligent farming that Cem Özdemir ought to be investing – and in doing so, helping the operations to work with these systems. This would mean that we would no longer have to discuss the same topics over and over again in the future. Instead, the new normality would be intelligent, healthy and optimally sustainable farming for everyone.

Olaf Deininger is the Editor-in-chief of the agricultural media published by the Deutscher Fachverlag media group, an author («Food Code – Wie wir in der digitalen Welt die Kontrolle über unser Essen behalten» – «Food Code – how we retain control over our food in the digital world») and a digital expert. The business journalist has many years’ experience working in management positions in food media and specialist media. This article was first published in agrarzeitung on January 21, 2022.

Reorientation in «genetic engineering»

Raphael Bühlmann

Raphael Bühlmann

Agricultural and business economist FH.

Politics seems resistant to facts

Beat Keller

Beat Keller

Beat Keller ist Professor für Molekulare Pflanzenbiologie an der Universität Zürich

«Plant breeding calls for liberal rules»

Jürg Niklaus

Jürg Niklaus

Jürg Niklaus has a doctorate in law and is an advocate of plant breeding.

More pesticides, more genetic engineering: How we are overcoming hunger.

Markus Somm

Markus Somm

Journalist, publicist, publisher and historian

«The fear of genetically modified plants is unwarranted»

Anke Fossgreen

Anke Fossgreen

Head of Knowledge Team Tamedia

«Politicians must avoid pushing prices up even more»

Babette Sigg Frank

Babette Sigg Frank

President of the Swiss Consumer Forum (KF)

Seizing the opportunity of green biotechnology

Roman Mazzotta

Roman Mazzotta

Country President Syngenta Switzerland

«Sustainability means more»

Hendrik Varnholt

Hendrik Varnholt

Journalist at Lebensmittel Zeitung

«One-third organic farming does not solve the problem»

Olaf Deininger

Olaf Deininger

Development Editor-in-Chief Agrar-Medien

«Ecological methods alone won’t cut it»

Saori Dubourg

Saori Dubourg

“Ecological methods alone won’t cut it”

«Most fears about pesticides are misplaced»

Michelle Miller

Michelle Miller

Columnist at Genetic Literacy Project and AGDaily

Agriculture needs new technologies

Erik Fyrwald

Erik Fyrwald

CEO Syngenta Group

«Modern pesticides can help fight climate change»

Jon Parr

Jon Parr

President of Syngenta Crop Protection

«Who is afraid of the evil GMOs?»

Jürg Vollmer

Jürg Vollmer

Editor-in-Chief of «die grüne» magazine

Content in German

«What plant breeding brings us»

Achim Walter

Achim Walter

Professor of Crop Science, ETH Zurich

Content in German

«Research and work place needs impetus»

Jan Lucht

Jan Lucht

Head of Biotechnology at Scienceindustries

Content in German

«Agriculture plays a major role»

Jan Grenz

Jan Grenz

Lecturer in Sustainability, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL

«Understanding nature’s mechanisms better»

Urs Niggli

Urs Niggli

Agricultural scientist and president of Agroecology Science

«For food security, we need genuine Swiss production»

Jil Schuller

Jil Schuller

Editor «BauernZeitung»

«Lay people completely disregard the dose»

Michael Siegrist

Michael Siegrist

Professor of Consumer Behaviour, ETH Zurich

Content in German

«Is organic really healthier?»

Anna Bozzi

Anna Bozzi

Head of Nutrition and Agriculture at scienceindustries

Content in German

«Genetic engineering and environmental protection go hand in hand»

Dr. Teresa Koller

Dr. Teresa Koller

Researcher at the Institute of Plant and Microbiology at the University of Zurich

«The «Greta» generation will rigorously dispel paradigms.»

Bruno Studer

Bruno Studer

Professor for Molecular Plant Breeding, ETH Zurich

Content in German

«Overcoming the urban-rural divide with constructive agricultural policy»

Jürg Vollmer

Jürg Vollmer

Editor-in-Chief of «die grüne» magazine

Content in German

«We protect what we use»

Regina Ammann

Regina Ammann

Head of Business Sustainability, Syngenta Switzerland

Content in German

Related articles

When surveys create fear
New Breeding Technologies

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
Plant protection

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
Knowledge

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.

gfs survey confirms high acceptance of genome editing
Politics

gfs survey confirms high acceptance of genome editing

A large majority of the Swiss population recognises the advantages of targeted plant breeding using genome editing. This is shown by a survey conducted by gfs.bern.