Arguments for new breeding technologies
Plant breeding is complex. Accordingly, there are many questions in the discussion surrounding new breeding methods. swiss-food.ch has compiled the most important questions and answers on new breeding technologies.
Sunday, March 20, 2022
The scientific consensus on the safety of modern breeding methods is strong. The modern breeding methods are much more accurate than many of the classical approaches that have been used in Switzerland for a long time and also interfere with the genome of the plant. For leading researchers in the field, it is clear: It is simply wrong to claim that there is no data base.
Research has been conducted on genetic engineering for decades. The potential risks, including those relating to new procedures, have been investigated over and over again. Genetically modified plants pose no greater risk than conventional plants. This was also confirmed in 2012 by the National Fund Project 59 (NFP 59). The scientific consensus is comparable to that on human-induced global warming. A survey of around 2000 American scientists from the fields of biology and biochemistry showed in 2014 that 91 percent of the respondents considered the consumption of genetically modified foods to be completely harmless.
This also applies to the new more precise breeding methods. Applications of genome editing are more accurate and have been shown to cause fewer so-called "off-target effects" (mutations at unwanted places) than methods already approved today, such as classical mutagenesis. The Swiss Academy of natural Sciences (SCNAT) points out on several occasions that the scientific basis can be considered sufficient to adapt the legal provisions to the current state of knowledge and that breeding techniques will no longer play a role in regulation, but only the product, i.e. the plant with its new properties.
This is also confirmed by Prof. Wilhelm Gruissem from ETH Zurich, who was already a major participant in the NFP 59. In an interview, he points out that there are numerous studies that show that the new breeding methods, just like conventional breeding methods, can also be used at a manageable risk. In view of this, the claim that there are no reliable data and only a small amount of information on the new genomic procedures, as also made in the context of the debate in the National Council, has been made out of thin air.
These and other arguments can be found in our detailed Q&A on the new breeding technologies, available for download below.
Sources
Related articles
How NZT makes popular varieties more resilient
New breeding technologies offer solutions – but they are simply being ignored in the current debate. Anyone who complains about the lack of flavour in strawberries must also be prepared to accept modern methods such as genome editing.
When the anti-genetic engineering lobby is in charge
A Tages-Anzeiger journalist gets caught in the threads of the anti-genetic engineering lobby and stumbles into unscientific territory. He writes about the fact that a politically controversial word is missing from a bill and embezzles a word himself when calling witnesses. A current example that shows how the choice of words can influence the perception of an issue.
As if there was no time limit in this country
The EU has been stuck on the regulation of new breeding technologies for years. Switzerland is also missing out on developments. While innovative approaches are already being used commercially worldwide, Europe and Switzerland lack clear rules – with far-reaching consequences for local farmers, breeders and seed propagators, as well as for global trade.
When surveys create fear
Surveys on technologies such as genetic engineering often focus on risks and spread panic instead of promoting a balanced discussion of the pros and cons. A striking example is the environmental indicator of the Federal Statistical Office. Social scientist Angela Bearth is highly critical of the survey.