Wheat is the most important type of grain in Germany and Switzerland. Viruses in the soil can destroy up to 70 per cent of a field's harvest. This is a real problem, and the daily struggle of farmers against these and other dangers is a major global challenge. In addition, in many places farmers are being given fewer and fewer means to protect their crops. It is therefore fitting that Manuel Stark begins with the following thought in the NZZ: ‘How many problems would be solved if there were a technology that made our food supply more secure. At a time when environmental conditions are changing rapidly, if this technology could produce plants that could survive droughts or flooding and need fewer agricultural toxins or fertilisers to thrive.’ The subjunctive is used here merely as a stylistic device. Because immediately afterwards, the author solves the problem: ‘First the good news: this technology already exists. And this year, both the EU and Switzerland will decide whether to allow it outside of research: green genetic engineering.’

The bad news, of course, is that this technology will only be insufficiently legalised, if at all, in Switzerland and the EU. The current directions of approach in governments and parliaments suggest this. Yet the case has long been settled from a scientific point of view. Stark also sees it this way: ‘One example of an application shows how overdue it is to finally approve crops bred using genetic engineering: Unlike humans, plants do not have an immune system. They are either resistant to a virus through their genes – or they are not. During the coronavirus pandemic, humanity has learned how quickly viruses mutate. With conventional breeding methods, it takes at least twelve years to transfer a single resistance to a virus into a wheat variety. With modern methods of green genetic engineering, this time can be reduced to two years."

Plant viruses may change more slowly than the coronavirus, but still quickly enough to affect our food supply: ‘Viruses already destroy about half of the world's potential harvests. And this trend will worsen in the coming years. Among other things, because mild winters and weather events such as flooding help many viruses spread faster.’ A virus almost wiped out a type of grain in Germany once before – but scientists and breeders found a resistance to the yellow barley mosaic virus just in time. ‘At least twelve years for a single resistance; it's quite possible that a virus will mutate in the future that takes too long to combat.’

Other countries are forging ahead

The situation is clear: if we want to protect our crops in the future in a world that is changing ever more rapidly, we will have no choice but to become more innovative, faster and better. This is precisely the great promise of the new breeding methods. These rely on genome editing, for example using the Crispr/Cas9 gene scissors: ‘If you imagine a plant's DNA as a book in which all its properties are recorded – i.e. how tall it grows, how well it survives droughts or floods and also how it defends itself against a virus – then the gene scissors are a correction tool that can delete words and, if necessary, replace them with other formulations or add new terms. While traditional plant breeding often confuses the chapters and sentences of the book to the point where at least most of the letters happen to be in the right place, genome editing only changes what you want to change,’ according to the NZZ. In addition, with random breeding, desirable properties are repeatedly lost. In short, traditional breeding methods are like a sledgehammer that can be used to make an addition or an improvement at one end, but can also cause unwanted damage. The new methods, on the other hand, are like a scalpel that can be used to make changes only where they are really wanted.

Other countries, including the United States and China, have long since embraced green genetic engineering. And that is the bad news: according to the NZZ, ‘it is quite possible that in the future these countries will determine what we eat.’ Because in a world in which environmental conditions are changing ever more rapidly, plant breeding is needed that can respond quickly to changes. And because many politicians in the EU and Switzerland show no interest in facts in the debate about green genetic engineering. Instead, it is mainly about ideology.

One example is the position of the Green Party in the German Bundestag. The faction warns that genetically modified plants could ‘upset ecosystems’ and that ‘environmental and health protection are at risk’ if the approval rules for green genetic engineering are relaxed. The Green Party in Switzerland takes the same position, claiming that there has been ‘little risk research’ to date.

Both claims are false. For more than ten years, studies on food and environmental safety have repeatedly come to the same conclusion: plant breeding using modern methods of green genetic engineering is safe. The German National Academy of Sciences, the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – in fact, all reputable scientific institutions take a positive view of green genetic engineering and, compared to conventional breeding, see advantages in precisely those areas where opponents of genetic engineering fantasise about dangers,’ is how the NZZ sums up the current impasse.

The voter base seems to be more important than sensible policy

The argumentation of the Green German Minister of Agriculture, Cem Özdemir, seems particularly paradoxical. True to the line of his party, he fundamentally rejects any relaxation of Green gene technology regulations. And he justifies his position by saying that plants bred by genome editing cannot be distinguished from conventionally bred plants.

Özdemir is right: If you look at the properties of the plant, the only thing that distinguishes a genetically modified apple from one of its organic counterparts is an organic sticker. But how can genetically modified plants endanger ecosystems and pose a health risk when organic products are often praised by the Greens as a step towards a better world?

The minister is aware of the facts. The same can be assumed of his political colleagues in Switzerland. So why this anti-attitude towards green genetic engineering? Perhaps it is more important to the Greens to please their voter base than to be honest and to base their policies on reason.

The opponents of green genetic engineering stoke up fear

There are other institutions whose position on green genetic engineering is closer to religious ideology than to reason and logic. These include Bread for the World, the Bund Naturschutz (German Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union), representatives of bio-industry and, above all, Greenpeace. They spin a narrative by spreading statements such as that the possible dangers of genetically modified plants have not been conclusively clarified.

This rhetoric is insidious. It stokes up fear and, unfortunately, this fear is all too often justified: More than three quarters of Germans are critical of green genetic engineering, and more than 90 percent are calling for further research into negative consequences. In Switzerland, three quarters of the population are also against genetically modified plants. But this is only half the story. In the same Swiss survey, around 80 per cent of respondents found genome editing useful if it could be used to make crops more resistant to plant diseases. The survey thus refutes the argument often expressed by technology sceptics that consumers reject genome editing. The case is more complex. On the contrary, acceptance is extremely high when there is a clear benefit. Facts are still the best therapy against fear campaigns.

But that doesn't mean that the fear argument won't be played on, as the NZZ goes on to show: ‘The words are chosen in such a way that serious science cannot contradict them. Not because the talk of “possible dangers” is plausible, but because empirical research only makes it possible to prove what already exists. Proving the non-existence of possibilities is beyond its nature. If someone were to claim that an invisible unicorn is dancing on their shoulder, singing Helene Fischer's ‘Breathless Through the Night’ in an imperceptible frequency, then empirical science can only say: Based on what we know, there is no unicorn. Would someone seriously argue that whether or not a unicorn is dancing there has not been conclusively determined? Greenpeace and Co. must now answer yes. Some of their arguments against green genetic engineering follow exactly this logic.’ There is no better way to expose the perfidious fear campaign: Deliberately clueless through the night!

Genome editing also helps regional plant breeders

The claim that genetic engineering only helps large corporations is similarly disingenuous. The opposite is true: only billion-dollar companies can afford expensive approval procedures. Studies show that regional plant breeders expand their share of the seed market when the approval rules for green genetic engineering are relaxed.’ Most researchers agree: ‘The extreme regulation of new genetic engineering methods increases the concentration of market power in a few large corporations.’ In the EU and Switzerland, where the laws for green genetic engineering are among the strictest in the world, only five corporations control 95 percent of vegetable seeds. So the critics are promoting exactly what they claim to be fighting!

‘Now critics often point to countries like the US, where corporations sue individual farmers. With green genetic engineering, it's like with any tool: how you use it is important. Yes, those who use green genetic engineering to breed plants that are resistant to specific herbicides and then sell these poisons as well are doing good business – sometimes at the expense of the environment and farmers. But if you breed varieties that have regional advantages, you can cultivate land even where elite varieties from corporations fail. And how green genetic engineering is used can be controlled: by regulating the properties of a plant instead of the methods of breeding.’

In Switzerland, the moratorium on genetic engineering was supposed to end on 31 December. However, the National Council voted 153 to 42 in favour of an extension until 2030. Now the Council of States will discuss genome editing in plant breeding. The EU Parliament has adopted an amendment to the genetic engineering law, which the agriculture ministers must vote on.

‘2025 is the year of the choice between reason and ideology.’ Unfortunately, the debate so far has been less of a constructive argument than an unreasoning scramble. This is also due to the narratives of those who profit from the fear of green genetic engineering: ’The money and power of politically influential institutions depend on how many people they can convince with their messages. And fear is a more effective tool than logic and reason when it comes to influencing people. The excellent article by Manuel Stark could not have ended better.