Fiction is a wonderful genre. You can invent stories freely, sharpen facts and exaggerate social circumstances. Who would still want to be a documentary filmmaker?

The problem begins when scientific facts are distorted under the cover of such artistic freedom to the point that only politically motivated propaganda remains – broadcast, no less, by a public television network. This is precisely what happened in the Tatort episode 'Letzte Ernte', aired on 26 October 2025.

The story is set in an agricultural environment, in the 'Altes Land', a region in Germany known for its apple production. The real villain is not a human, but a crop protection product: glyphosate.

If glyphosate were applied in real life as shown in the crime drama, the entire apple orchard population of the Altes Land would be destroyed.

That the farmer in the film suffers from cancer – naturally 'because of the pesticide' – also fits perfectly into the dramaturgical worldview of the Tatort producers. After all, pesticide deaths generate higher ratings than deaths caused by hot beverages or red meat – both of which the WHO ranks in the same toxicity category as glyphosate.

But who cares about realism when apple orchards shrouded in clouds of glyphosate make for more dramatic images and better serve one's own distorted worldview?

Tatort with a Social Mission

A few days ago, another Tatort set in an agricultural milieu was broadcast. Filmed in the Altes Land near Hamburg – one of Germany’s largest fruit-growing regions – 'Letzte Ernte' centres on apple cultivation.

That such crime dramas contain logical flaws and caricature police work rather than depict it realistically is nothing new. Nor is the fact that not all information is accurate. Usually, that is forgivable. But not in this case, because this Tatort came with a mission.

The missionary: actress Maria Furtwängler, who not only starred in the main role but developed the script and participated in the production through her company Atalanta Film.

Mission: 'A critical look at crop protection products'

Director Johannes Naber explains on the NDR information page how Furtwängler approached him about the film: “For her, biodiversity in agriculture and a critical view of crop protection products were central. (…) For her, Tatort is not just a crime show; she always links her popularity to a social mission. I admire that, so I agreed.”

Furtwängler has long been active in this area, including through her MaLisa Foundation, which claims to work to ensure that issues such as climate change and species extinction are reflected “in reporting and narratives on German television”.

In 2024, she already tried to do so with a “documentary” on insect decline for NDR – of all things within the programme “Expeditionen ins Tierreich”, not exactly known for activist environmental films. Her film (“Idea and presentation: Maria Furtwängler”, as the credits note), co-produced by NDR and Atalanta Film, focused exclusively on crop protection products as the cause of insect decline and ignored all other factors – light pollution, land use, climate change, the disappearance of specialised habitats, manure heaps and slurry pits, etc.

Activism Instead of Science

Furtwängler’s key witness was Angelika Hilbeck, an agroecologist at ETH Zurich known for her activism against glyphosate and other crop protection products, against genetic engineering, and for her scepticism of mRNA vaccines. Furtwängler lets her elaborate on a study involving lacewing larvae exposed to unrealistic concentrations of a glyphosate-containing product. Moreover, the product contained another substance known to be harmful to insects, meaning the study says nothing about glyphosate’s actual toxicity. It is remarkable that Furtwängler, a medical doctor, did not offer a single word of critique – and that she ignored the basic toxicological fact that the dose makes the poison.

Neither Furtwängler nor NDR appear to have learned anything from the considerable criticism of that earlier film. Instead, this Tatort claims that glyphosate is responsible for the old farmer’s lymphoma and the young farmer’s infertility – statements that do not withstand any fact-check but fuel anger against crop protection. In reality, the herbicide, which kills all green plants, is used in orchards – if at all – only sparingly and at most twice a year for weed control under the trees. Apples never come into contact with it. Regular use or, as shown in the film, mist application would kill the trees. Furthermore, in the Altes Land, glyphosate use is banned on around 38% of orchard land because it lies in protected areas.

The film leaves out no cliché: apples in the Altes Land are supposedly sprayed 30 times a year with “50 mixed-together pesticides”, conventionally grown apples should not be eaten, farmers are pressured by agricultural suppliers to use sprays and therefore “spray like champions”, and so on. The film even claims that spray records are collected by the local agricultural trade – complete nonsense. And the plight of organic farmers is portrayed as so severe that they weave their own beehives, yet their honey is “too expensive” for them to eat themselves.

Misuse of NDR Formats

NDR defends itself by saying that Tatort is a “fictional work” and that crop protection is merely a “backdrop for a thrilling crime story”. They say that narrative tools like exaggeration are allowed.

But that is not the point. Furtwängler misuses ARD’s largest and most traditional crime series to promote her personal worldview and insert unscientific activist nonsense into the script – with the knowledge and approval of NDR, which once again demonstrates its ideological bias. What would happen if all Tatort actors and producers (or those of other programmes) were allowed similar forms of opinion-shaping? If every actor who feels called to be an environmental saviour could undertake their own “Expedition into the Animal Kingdom” at the taxpayers’ expense?

It is simply not the role of public broadcasting to smuggle the supposed “social missions” of foundations or NGOs into fictional films without transparency – especially when these self-proclaimed missionaries even profit twice: through their production companies and as on-screen contributors. This constellation is a case for the broadcasting council.