In hardly any other country is the idyllic image of organic farming cultivated in the public sphere as carefully as in Germany. Naturalness and rural authenticity are powerful mental refuges for many Germans. Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that resistance to new breeding techniques is strong – and that ignorance about the realities of organic farming sometimes appears almost deliberate. Organic agriculture is seen as “natural,” as the result of “good old” cross-breeding in which nothing should be disturbed. What ends up on the plate is supposedly nothing but pure nature. Reality, of course, looks quite different.

It is therefore no surprise that the planned liberalisation of genomic breeding techniques in the EU has sparked considerable opposition. A small survey conducted by Tagesspiegel among scientists following the EU trilogue on 4 December – which foresees broad approval of such plants – reveals one thing above all: German romanticism about naturalness has long since found institutional homes. And within them, arguments are often marked by remarkable vagueness.

While the molecular biologists, agricultural economists and food law experts surveyed assess the new EU regulation in a sober, precise and fact-based manner, the ecologically oriented voices drift into vague fears and ideologically charged warnings.

The experts arguing from a natural science perspective – Holger Puchta, Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel, Kai Purnhagen and Matin Qaim – present a coherent, evidence-based picture. Mutations from so-called NGT-1 (which contain only species-specific genetic material) are biologically indistinguishable from natural or conventionally induced changes. Risk assessment, they argue, must focus on the product rather than the method – a core principle of modern biosciences. Genome-edited varieties offer a realistic opportunity for a more resilient, climate-adapted and resource-efficient agriculture. Even the issue of patents is addressed pragmatically: what matters is competition law, not a diffuse scepticism towards technology.

The representatives of the ecological camp take a very different approach. Gunter Backes and Katja Tielbörger rely on concepts that, upon closer inspection, lack substance: “genetic integrity,” “disempowerment of consumers,” “unforeseeable consequences,” “lobby influence.” Empirical data, quantitative assessments or comparisons with breeding methods already widely used today – including in organic agriculture, particularly classical mutagenesis – are conspicuously absent. Instead, diffuse warnings and abstract worst-case scenarios dominate, neither contextualised nor substantiated. The line of argumentation appears more like an extension of ideological convictions than a contribution to scientific discourse.

The overall picture is clear: the closer the expertise lies to genetics and modern breeding techniques, the more consistent and evidence-based the analysis becomes. The more it stems from an ecological-ideological milieu, the more blurred and scientifically imprecise it appears.

This small showcase of professors thus demonstrates one thing above all: the conflict over new breeding techniques is a conflict between science and worldview. Science has little patience for romantic notions of natural purity and pastoral nostalgia – and rightly so.