
«The fear of genetically modified plants is unwarranted»
Genetically modified plants have garnered a negative reputation, but with new methods, they can hardly be distinguished from conventionally bred plants, as Anke Fossgreen argues in the 'Tages-Anzeiger.'
Thursday, May 25, 2023
The umbrella organization of organic agriculture, Bio Suisse, unanimously decided at its delegates' meeting on Tuesday to continue to refrain from using genetic engineering. The result is not surprising, but disappointing. It demonstrates that organic farmers are disregarding the advancements made in modern breeding research and perpetuating the negative perception of genetically modified food.
Ironically, it is precisely future genetically modified plants that offer possibilities that are important for organic farming as well. Modified plants can, for example, be resistant to diseases, reducing the need for pesticides. They can also be more durable, thereby reducing food waste, or they can withstand drought, which is crucial in the face of climate change.
However, why do many consumers refuse to eat genetically modified plants or animals fed with such plants? These plants, such as wheat, maize, and soybeans, are viewed with suspicion because their genetic makeup has been altered in the laboratory. Yet the fear of 'foreign genes' is unfounded. When we consume an apple, we ingest the fruit's genes; when we eat bread, we consume the grain's genes, and when we have a schnitzel, we consume the genes of a pig. Does this make us sick or alter us in any way? No. During the digestive process, our bodies break down not only proteins, carbohydrates, and fats but also foreign genetic material, utilizing it to sustain ourselves.
The discussion is no longer about the modified plant but the process by which it is produced.
Furthermore, genetic engineering has made significant strides. Today's genetically engineered plants are virtually indistinguishable from conventional breeds. This is achieved through genome editing techniques like the Crispr/CAS method, where the genetic material is slightly modified and optimized, akin to using a scalpel.
Those who previously felt uneasy about consuming genetically modified plants due to their perceived difference from conventionally bred plants no longer have a valid argument. Therefore, the discussion is no longer about the modified plant itself but rather the process by which it is produced.
As a reminder, since 1964, genetic modifications have been introduced into the genome of plants in Europe and elsewhere using methods that may sound alarming. Plants were bombarded with radioactive substances in fields and gardens, and now in laboratories. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 3300 plant varieties have been created through this so-called mutagenesis and have been approved in 70 countries. Some of these varieties are still used and consumed today, including many types of grain, rice, and citrus fruits, such as red grapefruit, which is also sold as an organic product.
In comparison, modern genetic engineering techniques are remarkably gentle and elegant.
While this may initially sound concerning, these plant varieties are not inherently radioactive simply because radiation was used in their production. Similarly, new plant varieties created through mutagenesis are not chemically poisoned, as the mutagenesis process can also be triggered by chemicals. These methods, perceived as 'natural' breeding, are employed to create new varieties.
In comparison, the methods currently discussed to enhance the properties of plants through modern genome editing techniques are remarkably gentle and elegant.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the taste and nutrient content of plants can also be specifically optimized through these methods. Let us embrace the opportunity to experience these new varieties.
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.
Anke Fossgreen has been leading Tamedia's knowledge team since 2022. She has been working as a science editor at Tamedia since 2000. During her doctoral thesis, she conducted research on Alzheimer's disease. Her interests lie in biology, health, nutrition, medicine, and exercise. This opinion piece was first published in the "Tages-Anzeiger" on April 18.
Related articles

‘There is no such thing as chemical-free food – there never has been and there never will be’
Chemical residues in our food are a hotly debated topic in the media time and again. A glance at Austria shows that it is an illusion to believe that residue-free food production is possible. This is because residues come from both natural and synthetic sources. And the same applies to all of them: it is the quantity that makes the poison.

Chasing Misinformation Feels Like Herding Cats
Science fiction has a way of masquerading as science fact — until someone like me comes with a bucket of cold, hard evidence. But let’s be real: debunking nonsense takes exponentially more effort than producing it. Jonathan Swift knew it in 1710, and here I am, centuries later, still speaking my truth before the next viral misinformation dumpster fire.

Why we need high-tech for tomorrow's agriculture
From genome editing to precision field spraying – innovations can strengthen the agriculture of tomorrow. They help to ensure that agricultural land can be used better. Crops are protected more efficiently. According to a survey by gfs.bern, the Swiss are very open to the use of modern technologies. This also applies to new breeding methods such as genome editing.

Why domestic cats threaten biodiversity
A ban on keeping domestic cats is currently being discussed in Scotland. The reason: driven by their hunting instinct, they are able to wipe out entire species of animals. The cat problem is also on the agenda in Switzerland.