Green genetic engineering: A rethink is required
There are now more skeptics than ever before when it comes to biotechnological plant breeding methods, despite 30 years of research having produced a clear data basis. Conventional genetic engineering or the more modern CRISPR/Cas method present no increased risks compared to traditional breeding methods, such as cross-breeding. It is time to see new technologies as a way of fighting climate change and preventing environmental damage.
Monday, July 25, 2022
There are two key arguments that are made time and time again by genetic engineering critics. Firstly, they argue that genetically modified (GM) plants could be harmful to human health. Secondly, they repeatedly claim that such plants could have a negative impact on the surrounding ecosystems. However, the results of more than 30 years of research suggest otherwise on both counts. As Bloomberg’s Amanda Little writes, “no evidence has ever been found proving that GMOs harm human health”. The World Health Organization, the US National Academy of Sciences and many other large research institutions around the world have reached the same conclusion.
30 years of research verify safety
It is within the realms of possibility that GM plants start to grow in the wild and crossbreed with related wild species. Plants of this type were found in Mexico in 2001 and 2009. However, no evidence has been found that these plants have brought about negative ecological changes. Urs Niggli, a pioneer of organic products, draws similar conclusions in an article published in the “Der Pragmaticus” online magazine: “The data is clear: In principle, as regards their effect on (agro-)ecosystems and on human health, new breeding methods are indistinguishable from traditional cross-breeding.” According to Niggli, despite this solid data basis, there is a persistent skepticism toward genetic engineering: “30 years of scientific progress, countless studies taking into account society’s viewpoint, thousands of forums and debates, for which scientists take time out of their laboratories, and yet, more than half of the population are still convinced that we do not know enough to open ‘Pandora's Box.’”
Blindspot article
Pragmatic solutions not ideology
Green genetic engineering, in particular innovative genome editing, shows huge potential when it comes to breeding drought- and pest-resistant plants. If global agriculture is to sustain 10 billion people by 2050, it will have to be innovative. According to Niggli, this includes modern research methods, digitalization, molecular biology and material sciences (e.g. nanotechnologies for extending the shelf life of food products). Faced with a need for sustainable problem solving, Niggli considers it logical to use these technologies. As the title of the “Pragmaticus” article states: To guarantee food security and simultaneously protect the environment, we need pragmatic solutions, not ideology.
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.
More agrobiodiversity thanks to genome editing
It is often wrongly claimed that new breeding technologies such as genome editing restrict diversity in the seed market. A new study shows that the opposite is the case. Genome editing promotes agrobiodiversity.
Genetic engineering has long been on Swiss plates
As a consumer, you often don't know: products advertised as GMO-free have long contained genetic engineering. This is a thorn in the side of opponents of genetic engineering. But it is easier to keep quiet about the ‘scandal’ – because something we have been eating for a long time no longer scares us.
Migros and the opportunities of genome editing
The demand for new breeding technologies is growing. Experts see an urgent need for action in order to utilise technological progress without jeopardising safety. Companies such as Migros also recognise the importance of these developments and are addressing the opportunities and challenges they bring. Meanwhile, contrary to scientific findings, opponents are continuing to tell the same horror stories as they did 30 years ago.