Will Europeans have more genetic engineering in their food in the near future? And then do you still have the choice to say “no”? The EU Commission is currently dealing with these questions, at least in a broader sense. More precisely, the aim is to reassess so-called green genetic engineering, i.e. its use in agriculture and nutrition. This is made necessary by technical progress in the form of modern methods in plant breeding such as CRISPR-Cas and others. This means that an old topic is back at the top of the agenda: the dispute over genetic engineering in Europe.
The question now is whether this struggle will break out again in all its fierceness. In the past three decades there have been times when critics in this country systematically destroyed every test field with GM maize. As a result, seed companies like Bayer and others largely gave up their genetic engineering research in Europe and relocated it to the USA or South America. Strict cultivation regulations in the EU also meant that there was hardly any cultivation in Europe.
New plant varieties can be grown faster
However, genetic engineering has developed significantly in recent years. So it is only fair and right to reassess them. The new methods no longer have anything in common with the crude old methods of genetic engineering. They allow the genome of plants to be changed precisely. In this way, breeding processes can possibly be accelerated and new varieties can come onto the market more quickly. Agriculture in particular quickly needs more robust plant varieties that can cope with the consequences of the climate crisis and at the same time deliver good yields.
Plants from the genetic engineering laboratory are particularly interesting for companies because, unlike conventionally grown plants, they can be patented. The seeds developed in this way are usually more expensive to sell and have to be bought by the farmers for each harvest season. That can create dependencies.
It is difficult to judge whether the new processes are actually cheaper, as advocates of genetic engineering have argued. But there is at least the risk that they can help push small and medium-sized farms out of business. What would be fatal, four international seed companies already control 60 percent of the market, which makes the entire industry a case for the antitrust authorities.
Many risks persist, even with the new procedures
Both the old and the new genetic engineering methods must meet the same requirements. Whoever uses them must not harm those who reject them. Risks must be carefully clarified. If the genetic material of genetically modified plants finds its way into the wild, it is an irreversible process with unforeseeable consequences. The new methods do not change that. It must also be ensured that organic producers are not disadvantaged. If, for example, genetically modified maize appears on the field of an organic farmer, this leads to a total loss of his harvest.
Above all, consumers must still have freedom of choice. After all, 90 percent of Germans reject genetic engineering in their food. In order for it to stay that way, clear labeling of food will also be required in the future.
It is good that the debate about the unpopular technology is more differentiated today. Companies and researchers learn to explain in a generally understandable way what exactly they are working on in the laboratory and what benefits mankind will get from it. Critics know that it is better to have a dialogue rather than vandalism.
In all of this, it helps to see genetic engineering for what it is: one method among many in plant breeding. The danger itself does not come from the technology, but from how it is used. It owes its bad reputation above all to the genetic engineering pioneer Monsanto, which is now part of Bayer. Its lucrative business model consisted primarily of making genetic engineering plants resistant to pesticides and selling both at high prices – at the expense of the environment and people. This is now costing the Bayer Group dearly, as the claims for damages in the United States for the glyphosate-containing weed killer Roundup show. A mistake from which the entire seed industry can only learn.