12.11.2022
When the brakemen bemoan the brakes
Dear readers,
Elections will be held in just under a year. The SRG has therefore recently released its election poll. Not only does it predict the performance of the parties, it also shows which issues are resonating with the voters. The survey results indicate that “climate change and the energy transition” and “security of supply and energy security” represent the two most critical political challenges.
Climate change and security of supplies are also monumental challenges at a global level, threatening the world population’s food supply. In an interview with the “SonntagsZeitung” newspaper, the Director of the Global Office of the UN World Food Program in Berlin, Martin Frick, shares this viewpoint: “The pandemic, wars and the effects of climate change are leading to what is currently the worst humanitarian crisis since World War 2. The threat of famine affects 345 million people – an unprecedented number.” Yet there are also no signs that the situation is improving: “Extreme heat and torrential rains in India led to a dismal wheat harvest, and rice yields are also way down this year. The production of fewer calories will impact global nutrition.”
What applies on a large scale also applies to Switzerland. Vulnerable global supplies raise the issue of self-sufficiency once again. In an interview with the Tages-Anzeiger, the Director of the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), Christian Hofer, warns against an overdependence on imported food. “Production has, by and large, managed to keep step with growing demand as a result of technical advancements and innovation.” However, the fact remains that around half of the food we eat is imported.
Solutions in farming which protect the climate while boosting productivity are being called for. Syngenta describes the challenge in a factsheet about regenerative agriculture: “Regenerative agriculture (…) improve not only soil, but delivers also high productivity and high-quality food and helps fight climate change and restore lost biodiversity.” And in a supporting article on its corporate website, Bayer asks the question: “Are you prepared for the future of agriculture?” Sustainability and efficiency must be a package deal. The text suggests furrows for agriculture to plow in the future (including no-till farming, of course).
There are no simple solutions. But one thing can be agreed upon. The key to the future lies in innovation. The world does not cope with climate change or supply by regressing and abandoning. Liberal Institute Director, Olivier Kessler, writes in the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung”: “Liberal market economies are what allow increasing needs to be met with fewer and fewer resources.” It’s a theory that Hans Rosling (co-author of “Factfulness”) has backed up with figures in his books. Rosling has made us realize that data should shape our world view, not biases. His TED Talk on this is still worth a watch. Data on global hunger show that hunger remains one of the biggest problems facing humanity. One person out of every ten is malnourished. Due to the war in Ukraine, the number of people going hungry is now on the rise again. That number had been steadily decreasing in recent decades. Greater productivity in agriculture is the reason for this. Modern plant breeding, cultivation methods and the protection of crops mean that much more food is being produced now compared to 50 years ago. Futurologist Matthias Horx also made reference to this positive development.
New solutions are required to tackle climate change and insecure supplies. A belief also held by EU agriculture ministers. They want to make progress in genome editing. Most agriculture ministers in the European Union consider new plant breeding technologies to be pivotal to greater food security. They are therefore calling for the rules governing the approval of new approaches in biotechnology to be reassessed. Growing biotechnologically modified crops on a massive scale would counteract global warming. This was the conclusion reached by American and German researchers following a study. Policies are also evolving in various countries as a result. The United Kingdom is leading the way. But the issue is also gaining traction in the EU and in Switzerland.Some commentators even spot a competition. New breeding technologies such as CRISPR/Cas, are methods in which point mutations can be introduced to bring forth new traits or suppress unwanted characteristics of a given variety. This technology could make a significant contribution to greater sustainability and food security and less food waste in the future.
But there is resistance. For example, the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (ECNH) issued a media release six years ago in which it complained about “the increasing speed with which novel plants are being released into the environment as a result of reduced breeding times”. The ethicists put on the brakes. Everything was happening too fast for them. Last month, the same committee that advises the Swiss Federal Council provided a report on climate change, agriculture and the role of biotechnology. Ethicists have now reached the following conclusion: Tackling climate change requires urgency. However, things are moving too slowly with the new biotechnological breeding methods. According to the media release, only a minority within the Ethics Committee has confidence in the technical progress being made. Radio SRF suspects that these are probably the natural scientists. The link to the full ECNH report is available here.
The situation is absurd. The brakemen are bemoaning the brakes. The “Aargauer Zeitung” drily adds: “The role played by the ECNH’s ethical concerns about new breeding methods in general, raised several years ago, is unknown.” It seems strange. Although the committee extensively relies on scientific findings when describing climate change, it fails to acknowledge the broad scientific consensus on the benefits and harmlessness of the methods used in green biotechnology. It is simply shopping for opinions. In contrast, German Nobel laureate Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard succinctly explains the broad scientific consensus in a fascinating interview in the “Tagesspiegel”: “Genetic engineering offers major opportunities for environmental protection”. The article can also be found on swiss-food.ch.
In the “Nebelspalter” podcast, “Bern einfach”, Markus Somm and Dominik Feusi discuss the committee’s statements with some derision. Somm concludes that it has become “the clergy of the 21st century”. Resentment is also rising among associations, farmers and politicians, according to the “Aargauer Zeitung”: “The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee does not recognize the potential of the new cultivation methods and lacks faith in technical progress,” says Christian Wasserfallen, FDP member of the Swiss National Council. Biopioneer Urs Niggli cannot comprehend why new technologies are being shunned. Roland Peter, the Head of the Plant Breeding Research Division at Agroscope, added: “The new methods have great potential to meet the challenges faced by the agri-food sector.”
The “Varieties for Tomorrow” umbrella association, which includes companies such as Migros, is therefore calling on the Swiss Federal Council to fulfill its statutory mandate and to present a feasible draft regulation for new plant breeding methods by 2024. This is the mandate given by the Federal Assembly. The Swiss Farmers’ Union is also astounded by the agricultural advice offered by theologians and philosophers on the Ethics Committee. It suggests that the committee stay in its lane. University of St. Gallen professor Peter Hettich lambasted the committee, tweeting: “Anyone who does not want to harness every possibility afforded by technology to overcome and adapt to climate change is not acting ethically and is instead essentially a misanthrope.”
There is no shortage of promising research examples. Yet Switzerland’s restrictive attitude toward green biotechnology means that it is passing up the opportunity to tap into the massive potential offered by new plant varieties. Countries such as China and the US have already made much more progress. Molecular biologist Beat Keller of the University of Zurich has been researching the wheat genome for decades. He is convinced that the increased productivity needed to feed the global population can only be achieved through precision breeding.
Many problems still require a solution: The soil in the Po Valley is contaminated with salt and water is scarce. A glimmer of hope comes from Southeast Asia, where salt-resistant rice varieties are braving the saline soils. Modern breeding methods deserve the credit for this.
“scienceindustries” cites another example in its biotechnology newsletter, “POINT”. It is known that nitrogen fertilizer is vital to plant growth. However, the fertilizer pollutes the environment and contributes to global warming, and its production requires a lot of energy to be consumed. Genome editing promises a solution. Rice bread with these new technologies can provide its own fertilizer. US researchers have demonstrated this already.
The findings of this research are positive for both plant growth and the climate. Precision breeding may be just onesolution at our disposal to address hunger, but it can also make traditional and local strains more resistant to stress, such as the Ethiopian staple grain, teff. Green biotechnology techniques are bringing us all closer to achieving our goal of securing supplies while protecting the environment. The Ethics Committee ought to be rejoicing. But it would require a U-turn from the ethicists, without which they would remain behind the curve.
The Swiss-Food editorial team
