Politics seems resistant to facts
Sunday, May 5, 2024
In the USA, petunia plants that glow at night will be coming onto the market in the next few weeks. Surprisingly, these plants are freely available there, even if they contain genes from a fungus (www.light.bio). They are therefore plants that have been bred using classical genetic engineering.
In Switzerland, the sale of these petunias would be prohibited, as any planting of such plants in a garden would be considered a release. Cultivation for commercial purposes would be prohibited, and planting for research purposes would require authorisation for each individual case (location). The law does not provide for the cultivation of such plants purely for pleasure anyway. This example shows how differently plants bred using classical genetic engineering are regulated at national level.
In international comparison, Switzerland has legislation that can be categorised as very restrictive. In the past, the Swiss parliament has decided to extend the moratorium on genetic engineering in agriculture every four years (genetic engineering is now taken for granted in medical applications).
The justifications for these extensions are always different and have long been scientifically incomprehensible: Back in 2012, a National Research Programme on the benefits and risks of genetically modified plants concluded that genetically modified plants «pose no greater risk to the environment or food safety than traditional and conventionally bred crops». This finding, confirmed by many other similar studies worldwide, has left no trace in Switzerland's legislation: the ban remains in place and is politically motivated.
Switzerland at an impasse
In addition to «classic» genetic engineering, which has been used commercially for around 30 years, the moratorium on genetic engineering in Switzerland also affects plant varieties that have been bred using new plant breeding methods (genome editing, e.g. Crispr/Cas9). In most cases, these plants do not contain any newly introduced genes and could also have arisen naturally: even rare genetic changes in the genome occur spontaneously in nature.
This means that many plants that have been bred using the new methods are identical to naturally occurring plants. They cannot be distinguished analytically and have the same biological properties.
It is foreseeable that a different legal assessment of the same plant based solely on the method by which it was produced (mutation breeding as a classic method vs. new plant breeding methods) cannot be controlled in practice. This will result in major uncertainties and difficulties in trade.
While a new law on the science-based assessment of new plant breeding methods is at least in the parliamentary process in the EU, the responsible administrative bodies in Switzerland seem to be of the opinion that a stricter solution with a «Swiss finish» is necessary compared to the EU proposal.
A major challenge
There is therefore a risk that the scientifically unfounded regulation will continue in Switzerland and that we will increasingly find ourselves at an international dead end. The new methods provide plant breeding with very helpful new tools to develop varieties that are adapted to rapidly changing and very challenging environmental conditions: Climate change, drought, but also intermittent wetness, new pathogens and the need for additional food are just some of the major challenges we face globally. In this situation, it is unwise to ban or restrictively regulate new methods.
In 1952, Liechtenstein banned the cultivation of hybrid maize «to protect the indigenous maize varieties as bread grain». This shows that new plant breeding methods were already controversial and banned in the past. However, the example makes it clear that such a prohibition culture leads to a dead end and is by no means the model for the agriculture of the future. Experience shows that plant breeding, even with new methods, is a safe technology.
It is important and right to evaluate the products of plant breeding on the basis of their properties and, if necessary, to regulate them. Legal regulation based on the production method is unscientific, inappropriate and simply not relevant. Or have you ever asked in a restaurant whether the fine rösti was cooked on an electric or gas hob?
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.
Related articles
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.
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.