Seite 2: Hope for less pesticides

Inhaltsverzeichnis

The new genomic techniques can also be used to create crops that tolerate herbicides. It would then be likely that even more products would be applied against wild weeds, i.e. more pesticides instead of fewer.

Genomic engineering is a tool that can be used to create varieties with different characteristics. Herbicide-resistant crops grown solely to achieve higher yields while accepting negative environmental impacts from higher pesticide use are certainly not progress. But if the technology is used to get drought-resistant crops faster without using more fertilizer and pesticides, it would still be a win. Think of plants that can produce polyunsaturated fatty acids, or proteins with higher nutritional value. That way, we could get closer to the goals of reducing animal consumption after all, since we could offer equivalent plant-based alternatives. New NGT crops could also become valuable elements in new crop rotations, where the use of mineral fertilizers or pesticides could be reduced.

Regulation, adapt to the new techniques

So how big could the contribution of the new genetic engineering methods be for the change in agriculture that is necessary according to the Green Deal?

NGT can be an important element for an environmentally friendly, new agriculture in the future. However, the safety assessment of new varieties remains essential and should comply with the precautionary principle. Overall, the proposal to adapt the safety assessment of NGT plants specifically to the new techniques seems to me to be overdue, because the old regulation was not developed for such plants at all. However, the new regulation is not a foregone conclusion. Other measures remain crucial for a turnaround in agriculture. The balance between productivity and sustainability must be right. And this includes, above all, diverse crop rotations, parallel cultivation of different crops and also a wise distribution of food worldwide. There is no need to chase the maxim of ever higher yields.

Critics say that genetically engineered varieties resistant to certain pests may well lose their resistance over time, and that the technology therefore does not really produce sustainable results.

In fact, there are cases where resistance to Bt corn, for example, worked quite well at the beginning, but then it wore off and at some point farmers started spraying pesticides again. And that, of course, is not sensible at all. But there is a clear recommendation for cultivation that was apparently not consistently followed by farms in such cases. When growing Bt corn, the farmer should cultivate conventional varieties on part of his field so that Bt-sensitive insects can feed and reproduce there, so that resistance cannot accumulate in the populations. But the farmer has to set up these so-called refuges for this purpose, on which he may then have no yield or only a reduced yield.

Proponents hope that new regulation will soften the concentration on a few large seed producers. Is that realistic?

I believe that this trend toward monopolization, which endangers economic diversity, is visible in many cases, irrespective of the issue of genetic engineering. But in fact, with the new genetic engineering tools, I think there will be more opportunities for research institutions to become active with the goal of enabling sustainable agriculture. And their interest is not to make profits and secure patents.

One could promote products and processes according to the principle of "open source" so that positive developments are also used by others. And that would definitely be an advantage. So far, genetic engineering for agriculture has been left too much to industrialization in order to achieve even higher yields. The opportunities to use NGT for the development of environmentally friendly alternatives have, in my opinion, been far from exhausted.

(anh)