10.04.2025
Snow White and the Seven Fairy Tales
Dear readers,
Everyone knows the story of Snow White. In the Brothers Grimm fairy tale, the poor princess falls into a deep sleep after eating a poisoned apple given to her by her jealous step-mother, who wanted to be «the fairest in the land,» as foretold by her mirror.
The Swiss Snow White is in a deep sleep too. It's sobering to think that the EU, of all things, is going to redeem the Swiss Snow White as the (itself rather temperamentless) Prince Charming – rudely by creating realities.
We are referring to the deep sleep Switzerland has been in when it comes to innovative breeding methods. Our federal Snow White is in a slumber. Every now and then she tries to get up, as was the case Wednesday last week: Swiss Federal Council member Rösti announced the creation of a special law for regulating new breeding technologies. But the poisoned apple of the anti-gentech lobby, is still working. The step-mother «GMO-free agriculture», jealously guards her monopoly, which she was only able to gain thanks to seven fairy tales:
Fairy tale #1: «Our crops are natural.»
This notion is widespread, but the fact is humans have been interfering with the plant genome for thousands of years. The varieties we have today were bred from wild plants over the last 10,000 years. Through crossbreeding, selection, and mutations, plants have been adapted to the needs of humankind. Modern mutation breeding has been using chemicals and radioactive radiation to create new genetic material since the 20th century. In other words, many of today’s varieties – including those used in organic farming – are the result of these kinds of mutagenic methods, which are considered genetic engineering but are not regulated as such. The CRISPR/Cas genetic scissors can make minor genetic modifications with much greater precision, but it is this precise method that is defamed as «unnatural.» Genome editing continues the breeding tradition - but in a much more targeted way.
Fairy tale #2: «The Swiss food system is GMO-free.»
Although no genetically modified plants are officially cultivated in the fields due to the genetic engineering «providurium» that has been in force since 2005, as explained in Fairy Tale 1, untargeted mutation breeding is also genetic engineering. What is more, genetically modified organisms enter the value chain indirectly. According to the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO), one soy line, three maize lines, two vitamins, two rennet enzymes, two types of sugar as additives, and multiple food enzymes as processing aids are currently authorized in Switzerland for use in food. In addition, veterinary medicines and vaccines are increasingly being produced using genetic engineering, just as in human medicine.
Fairy tale #3: «Genetic engineering has unknown risks.»
This fairy tale fuels diffuse fear and ignores the current state of science. Genetically modified plants have been cultivated and consumed worldwide for more than 25 years. Not one confirmed case of harm to human or animal health has ever been reported in all those years. And with regard to the environment, it has become apparent that: «The cultivation of genetically modified plants does not entail any environmental risks that do not also exist for conventionally bred plants.» A research program conducted by the Swiss National Science Foundation (NRP 59) even came to this conclusion already back in 2012. For the Swiss Academy of Sciences, it is clear that certain GM plants could make a contribution to high-yielding and environmentally friendly Swiss agriculture.
This is all the more true with modern genome editing methods: if no foreign gene is inserted, the resulting plants are genetically indistinguishable from conventionally bred plants. The new Federal law recognizes this insofar as it encompasses only non-transgenic modifications.
Nevertheless, every plant created using new breeding technologies will continue to be subjected to a risk assessment - unless there is already an almost identical, previously tested variant. This greatly overstretches the precautionary principle. If every innovation is treated as if it were dangerous before it has been endlessly proven that there is no risk, progress will stagnate. Or as the NZZ aptly commented: «If someone were to claim that an invisible unicorn is dancing on their shoulder and singing the song ‹Atemlos durch die Nacht › by Helene Fischer at an imperceptible frequency, then empirical science can only say: according to everything we know, there is no unicorn.» The precautionary principle is at risk of becoming an «obstruction principle.»
Fairy tale #4: «New methods = genetic engineering; old methods = natural.»
This fairy tale is closely related to myths 1 and 2, and it shows how inconsistent regulations are. Random mutation caused by chemicals or radiation (conventional mutagenesis) is considered the classical method, and is not regulated as a form of genetic engineering, even though it modifies genetic material randomly and uncontrollably. In contrast, precision methods like CRISPR/Cas is labeled genetic engineering. The anti-gentech lobby pretends that the new method alone is dangerous. The fact is that both methods result in a modified plant. The result and the traits often do not differ at all from what would have been produced by natural processes or conventional breeding technologies. The mutations generated by genome editing can correspond to those that occur spontaneously or through conventional breeding methods. What remains is a double standard: What is new is treated as generally suspicious, regardless of how similar the result is to the familiar. This prevents innovation without any real added value for safety or health.
Fairy tale #5: «The promises of green genetic engineering have not been fulfilled.»
Numerous examples disprove this fairy tale. Here are just a few: In Hawaii in the 1990s, papaya production dropped by more than half due to the papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). Researchers from various universities succeeded in only a short time in developing virus-resistant papayas. They inserted the virus’s coat protein gene into the plant, which was similar to an «immunization.» Thanks to genetic engineering, the most popular banana variety has also been saved. In India, a genetically modified aubergine variety was developed by universities, which independently develops a protein that deters pests from eating it. And researchers at ETH Zurich have bred rice and manioc enriched with micronutrients. This benefits local small farmers by improving «orphan crops» (i.e., crops that have been rather neglected by research and farming) such as teff (Williams lovegrass) and cassava (manioc) in terms of cultivation or nutritional value, thanks to genetic engineering. Many orphan crops are grown in developing countries, where they play an important role in ensuring food security.
Fairy tale #6: «Green genetic engineering only benefits major corporations.»
In the public debate, the image of the powerful agricultural corporations like for example Syngenta and Bayer are often conjured up as the only ones to profit from genetic engineering. But this fairy tale misconstrues cause and effect. If overly strict regulations make market approval expensive and complex, then small breeders or public research institutions have little chance. The stricter the requirements, the more major corporations suppress smaller innovators. If regulations continue to be as strict as they are in the Swiss draft for new breeding methods (mandatory authorization, mandatory supporting documentation, distance regulations, etc.), then small breeders have hardly any chance at all. With high regulatory hurdles, the fairy tale of «corporate technology» is a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, genome editing could be a blessing, particularly for small breeding companies and research projects. It is simpler and more cost-effective to use than traditional genetic engineering methods.
Fairy tale #7: «Consumers don’t want genetic engineering.»
One frequently cited reason against loosening the ban on genetic engineering is the alleged lack of consumer approval. The claim is that people don’t want GMO food, and production must therefore be strictly prohibited. But surveys reveal a more nuanced picture. According to a representative survey conducted by gfs.bern in 2024 on behalf of swiss-food, a clear majority of Swiss are in favor of genome editing if it results in more robust and eco-friendly plants. Over 60 percent of respondents were open to new breeding methods especially if the benefits, such as less pesticide use or healthier ingredients, were evident. This result corroborates a similar survey conducted in 2021. The widespread assumption that people reject this technology should be consigned to the realm of fantasy. In practice, consumers are increasingly concerned about the impact of their food on the climate and the environment. If a gene-edited variety consumes less water and reduces pesticide use, this could even be a selling point. It is important to provide the general public with objective information, instead of raising doubts by using the buzzword «GMO free.»
A scientific perspective instead of a deep sleep
In the fairy tale of the Brothers Grimm, Snow White is awakened by a clumsy dwarf. Applied to Swiss agriculture policy, this means we must give comatose legislation a good shake. While the current draft of the Federal Act on Plants from New Breeding Technologies is rhetorically presented as an «opening» to these technologies, it proves to be a largely obstructive regulation. It requires proof of «added value,» individual authorizations, widespread labeling, and a separate flow of goods. Although new breeds are to be exempted from the genetic engineering moratorium, at the same time new barriers are being put in place that eliminate virtually any benefit to Swiss agriculture. The demand for separation of goods flows seems particularly absurd. Classical mutagenesis is, by definition, genetic engineering. Already today, over 3,000 plants are being bred using classical mutagenesis, and they can even be found in Switzerland. Completely undeclared.
The Swiss breeding Snow White has been permanently damaged by the poison of the same old fairy tales. Breeders who can have long since relocated their breeding activities to more technology-friendly countries, making Switzerland even more dependent on imports of professional seed. The few breeding institutes and/or seed-producing («propagating») companies in Switzerland belong either to the category of jealous step-mothers who want to make themselves look better with fairy tales, i.e. to defend their business model, or to the idealistic minority who hope that reason will prevail at some point.
Switzerland's deep sleep in the field of innovative breeding methods is disappointing. Genetic engineering is being used at random in both classical and organic breeding. Breeding with the help of genome editing is much more precise. It can make popular varieties more resistant to plant disease and extreme weather by silencing or adding individual gene sequences. The population can continue to consume their preferred varieties and is ready for an honest opening, but the federal Snow White continues to slumber.
We need a fresh start in 2025. In the consultation procedure, scientists, associations and citizens can now voice their positions. Sustainable farming requires innovation in Switzerland too: climate resistance, reduced pesticide dependence, and higher efficiency. Genome editing is the right tool for it. It is now up to policymakers to bring advanced breeding technologies back to life.
Your swiss-food editorial team
