Greens flirt with genetic engineering

Genetically modified and normal plants at the Institute of Biology of the Humboldt University in Berlin. (Image: M. Gottschalk / Getty)

One thing was certain: Alliance 90 / The Greens were against genetically modified plants (GM plants). The party has fought against "poisons and genetic engineering" for more than three decades, deeming technology as an instrument of corporations to make farmers dependent. Genetic engineering in agriculture has been as devastating for the Greens as is nuclear energy. The resistance of the Greens served as a mediator and cemented the negative image that the Germans have GM crops.

But this anti-GMO attitude is now very moving for some Greens. In an impetus from the federal executive committee on the new basic program, it says in April: "This is how we, the Greens, oppose genetic changes in food, but we have to ask ourselves if some news technologies can not guarantee the food supply. where climate change is causing less and less rain or salty land. "

" Giving genetic engineering a chance "

A few days ago, Theresia Bauer, Baden-Württemberg's Minister of Science, was invited to" Spiegel Online "more clearly:" The Greens should recognize " state of science. And give genetic engineering a chance. "Explicitly, the plants are also meant, as revealed by a request from the author.A fundamental rejection is not wise, Bauer is convinced.The internal criticism came immediately.The green veteran Renate Künast, a once as federal minister of agriculture responsible for strict regulation of GM crops on German fields, found that his party comrades were lobbying on lime.

Obviously, new technological developments are confounding the green world in politics and in the field.The magic word is Crispr / Cas.9 Behind this cumbersome abbreviation hides a method of genetic engineering that makes it possible to incorporate precisely very small changes in genetic material. important traces in the genetic material as the techniques used so far.As a result, in many cases, a modified plant of Cree spr / Cas9 is genetically and biologically indistinguishable from a conventionally propagated plant.

Start the video

Does Crispr change our lives?

Each breed changes the genome, otherwise the plant would have no new property. Some of the conventional breeding methods of today are by no means gentle, they interfere with aggressive chemicals or radioactive radiation in the genes. In addition, seeds for organic farming are partially processed in this way. Scientists believe that a Crispr / Cas9 plant and a conventionally grown plant are also harmless or dangerous.

Therefore, according to the Attorney General, these new genetically modified plants should in principle not be more than genetically modified organisms in the Court of Justice of the European Union. being clbady. Thus accounted for the series of complex tests and clarifications. On Wednesday, the court wants to announce its verdict, it is expected that this will fail in the interest of the Advocate General. In the United States, this decision has already been made, Crispr / Cas9 plants are no longer considered as genetically modified.

According to green politician Theresia Bauer also in this country open to science to discuss the extent to which GM labeling at Crispr / Cas9 plant objectively traceable differences and existing risks. In principle, you should not measure with two different measures. She might well imagine that under certain circumstances, the Crispr / Cas9 factories would not have to be subject to the current strict regulations for genetically modified plants, she said in an interview. The spokesperson for the Green Parliamentary Group's genetic engineering policy, Harald Ebner, vehemently disagreed. We must defend the right to knowledge. Neither the old nor the new genetic engineering are able to solve the problems of agriculture in times of climate change.

Robert Habeck, leader of the Green Party, pointed out that the discussion on new genetic engineering would be open, but also on Crispr / Cas9 plants basically still like genetically modified organisms are watching. In addition, he demanded that the former should not be patented if they were not distinguishable from conventionally cultivated plants, but only subject to plant breeders' rights.

However, this would make a Crispr / Cas9 plant doubly unattractive to European scientists. or medium-sized seed producers. They are already scared of the effort. In addition, after several decades of campaigning against technology, GM labeling gives consumers the feeling that the plant can be dangerous. Among other things, many projects that could provide "good" crops, ie. GM crops resistant to drought or salt do not progress.

Green Grapes Collect Scientific Themes

Bauer and Habeck want to redefine the relationship between the Greens and modern science as a whole. Currently, there are things like picking cherries, also criticize the two green politicians Paula Louise Piechotta and Till Westermayer. Because the researchers have considered neonicotinoids harmful to the bee, the Greens are against neonicotinoids. But genes end the freedom of research. That the Greens or even other GM critics in the near future will really accept the elevated plants with the new gene scissors as a normal breeding, remains to be seen. Not everyone seems to have understood that modern green gene technology does not necessarily mean Monsanto, monoculture and herbicide-friendly crops.