Fighting against genome editing with yesterday’s weapons
The Council of States (upper house of the Federal Assembly of Switzerland) intends to allow genome editing provided that no foreign genetic material is inserted into new plant varieties through this method. The decision is causing consternation among genetic engineering skeptics. But you only have to look at their arguments to see that the opponents of genetic engineering are fighting with yesterday’s weapons.
Wednesday, December 8, 2021
According to the Bauernzeitung newspaper, the decision of the Council of States did not meet with a positive response from “die Grünen” (the Green Party of Switzerland). In a media release, the party stated that through this decision, the Council of States was “jeopardizing one of the most important quality characteristics of Swiss agriculture, its GE (genetic engineering) free status.” They are concerned that genetic engineering methods are still in their infancy. And that there are no market-ready products and no risk research either. In addition to the Green Party, the Swiss Smallholder Association (VKMB) and the Swiss GMO-free Alliance (Allianz Gentechfrei) also oppose the decision of the Council of States. They also stress the “unjustifiable risks” that new breeding methods present. The Umwelt magazine published by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU) even states that: “The risks of this technology [genome editing] are also not yet sufficiently known.”
The aid organization Swissaid has also contributed its opinion on this political discussion with a media release. While it is clear that only through agricultural productivity and innovation will we be able to feed a world with close to 10 billion people, Swissaid refuses to accept the facts and presents new genetic engineering methods as a threat to biodiversity— without any scientific basis for this. In the opinion of the Swiss Expert Committee for Biosafety (EFBS), the scientific evidence does not provide any grounds for prohibiting the new breeding methods.
Risk is no higher than with traditional crops
The talk of risks that are still unknown and the denial of opportunities is a popular means of blocking new technologies. The opponents of genome editing repeatedly stress the fact that the research is still incomplete as far as risk assessments are concerned. However there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in the assessment of the risks caused by genome editing in particular. The risk presented by genome-edited crops is no higher than with traditionally bred crops. Researchers from various Swiss universities and colleges have therefore urged in favor of relaxing the moratorium on genetic engineering. And this scientific consensus needs to be accepted. Those in green circles frequently refer to the scientific consensus on climate change. So it is revealing that the same parties are now ignoring the voices of science regarding allowing genome editing. The Tages-Anzeiger newspaper describes this attitude as “bizarre”. Ideology and repeating old stories are clearly more important than solving specific problems.
Interview with Prof. Wilhelm Gruissem
In his interview with Reto Brennwald, Prof. Wilhelm Gruissem from the ETH Zurich university explains why it is scientifically untenable to claim that the data situation is unclear—both for traditional genetic engineering and for genome editing.
Sources
Related articles
Faster Approval of Crop Protection Products Long Overdue
Switzerland is busy banning active substances that have also been withdrawn from the EU market. But in the other direction, it is dragging its feet: modern products that are already approved in neighboring countries remain blocked here. That could finally change now. The Economic Affairs and Taxation Committee of the National Council has adopted a corresponding proposal.
Differing perceptions
While the increasing administrative burden is perceived as the main concern in the economy, parts of the population see it differently. Meanwhile, regulations are repeatedly misused as a means of exerting power in the competitive struggle – to the detriment of SMEs.
Domestic production as a blind spot
Switzerland's food security is increasingly under pressure: last year's disastrous wheat and potato harvests have led to an increasing dependence on imports. However, the report by the Federal Office for National Economic Supply (FONES) is largely silent on the precarious state of the domestic agricultural sector. The IG BauernUnternehmen (Farmers' Company) has therefore sharply criticised the federal government.
PFAS regulation in Switzerland: Not faster, but better
Some people also call PFAS ‘forever chemicals’. Their use must be regulated as wisely as possible. To do this, the federal government first needs to do precise groundwork, according to Stefan Brupbacher, Urs Furrer and Stephan Mumenthaler.