Opinions
Urs Niggli

«Understanding nature’s mechanisms better»

Urs Niggi is an agronomist and president of Agroecology Science. Until March 2020, he was the director of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). He believes that new technologies such as genome editing have the potential to make agriculture more sustainable.

Friday, September 17, 2021

Crops need to be protected in both intensive and organic farming. The agroecosystem needs to be better understood if fewer chemicals are to be used in the future. People will have to be open to new approaches, such genetic engineering.


Farmers also need to protect their crops in order to achieve large and high-quality harvests. This is clearly demonstrated by figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): From 1996 to 1998, harmful organisms caused global harvest losses ranging from 26 to 40 percent, depending on the type of crop. Chemical pesticides are often used to protect crops, both for normal farming and, to an even greater extent, for special types of cultivation, such as fruit, wine and vegetables. Figures show that 44 percent of all chemical agents are used for agriculture, even though cultivated land only makes up 6 percent of land.


Chemicals are the main form of crop protection in intensive farming. In organic farming, preventing pests through crop management, robust or resistant varieties and mechanical measures like protective netting and tined weeders is standard practice. Organic methods of protecting crops are also used, such as natural substances, plant extracts and living organisms, like predatory and parasitic insects.


The major discussions around the referendum on the two pesticide initiatives on June 13, 2021, showed that the Swiss people are largely skeptical about chemical pesticides. The Federal Council has long followed a policy of reducing pesticides. The EU Commission wants to cut the amount of chemical pesticides that are used in half. And the advisory committee that is part of the World Food Summit, taking place in fall 2021, recommends using fewer chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and using more natural methods to protect crops.


Chemical crop protection is 135 years old. In 1885, botanist Pierre-André Milliardet described the effect of Bordeaux mixture (a combination of copper sulfate, lime and water) on downy mildew. Since then, some 500 chemical agents have come and gone. The use of these pesticides has made farming easier and thus decreased prices for food.


In 1962, Rachel Carson, in her book «Silent Spring,» for the first time called into question the success story of chemicals used to protect crops. Criticism of chemical pesticides has increased since then, as such pesticides have both desired and undesired effects: They impact not only individual organisms in the soil and water, but also entire populations through to ecosystem services, like the pollination of plants by insects. The major progress made in environmental analysis in recent years has also made it possible to show the impact of tiny residues of chemical pesticides on sensitive organisms in water and soil.


The history of organic farming, which began seventy years ago in the battle against the «chemicalization» of agriculture, shows how difficult it is to move agriculture away from chemical crop protection. Proponents of the pesticide initiative were playing with marked cards. For example, dicopper chloride trihydroxide, a synthetically manufactured agent, is still the first choice for combating fungi in organic farming. Even after 35 years of research at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and after eight major EU research programs, there are still no non-chemical alternatives.


Replacing chemical pesticides is also difficult because of the large quantities of plant matter needed to produce natural pesticides, which can only be extracted with the use of significant amounts of energy. Existing organic pesticides often cause another problem: They affect both pests and beneficial insects. And developing new agents is difficult.


Even when the initial situation is difficult, it is the task of science to find new solutions. Basic research must better understand nature’s mechanisms in order to identify agents that can be used to protect plants against harmful organisms. Such agents may also come directly from nature. In some cases, these natural agents can be copied artificially in the lab – which reduces production costs significantly.


Furthermore, researchers urgently need to better understand agroecosystems. For example, it is known that mixed crops of grains and legumes leave the fields weed-free, which in turn substantially reduces weed pressure when the crops are rotated . However, even with plant breeding it is important, despite preconceptions, to be open to new genetic engineering procedures if chemical pesticides are to be replaced.

Urs Niggi is an agronomist and president of Agroecology Science. Until March 2020, he was the director of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). This article was first published in NZZ newspaper on September 15, 2021. Photo: Mafalda Rakoš.

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.