Debate at gmo-safety.eu

---

Debate presents texts and opinions that contribute in a wide variety of ways towards enlivening the discussion surrounding green genetic engineering by offering new angles, surprising points of view and illuminating changes of perspective. Debate looks at scientific topics, but also social perceptions of science. Debate texts are designed to be understood by a broad readership and aim to bridge the divide between social and scientific discussion.

Recommendations of suitable texts in German and English are always welcome.

• Do you have a suggestion for a Debate text? Send an email to the GMO Safety editorial team

 

Feed the world: With or without genetic engineering?

---

16 October is World Food Day. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), which established World Food Day in 1979, will be drawing attention to the fact that one billion people are now suffering from hunger and malnourishment. Can plant biotechnology play a role in reducing hunger and poverty? GMO Safety asked two experts.

• Feed the world: With or without genetic engineering? 
• "There are various organic farming techniques which can get us a lot further than genetic engineering" Interview with Hans Herren
• "With Bt cotton, and even with Bt maize, we have seen yield increases of 30 to 40 per cent in developing countries." Interview with Matin Qaim 

 

Safety research: Why? Who does it? How independent is it?

---

Biological safety research in the field of plant biotechnology: What are people’s expectations? How can people find out about current research findings? These were the key questions of a panel discussion that was held on 29 June 2009 in Berlin as part of the closing conference of the Biosafenet project funded by the EU Commission. GMO Safety interviewed experts and participants.

• Safety research into genetically modified plants: Why? Who does it? How independent is it?

 

How much science? How much politics?
Discussion about the GMO authorisation procedure in the EU

---

The EU legal framework and the procedure for authorising genetically modified crops are being criticised. France has proposed that socioeconomic criteria be included in future authorisation decisions, the German CSU party and German agriculture minister, Seehofer, want the district administrations to be able to decide whether GM crops are grown. GMO Safety spoke to Maria Weimer, a PhD student at the European University Institute in Florence, about individual reform proposals and about fundamental issues concerning the relationship between science and politics.

• "On paper there is a clear division between science and politics. But the reality is different." 

 

"Perceived risks" and the role of science

---

Risks are often perceived by the general public in ways that differ from their actual scientific assessment. GMO Safety spoke to Prof. Andreas Hensel, president of Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) about the different assessment criteria used by lay people and experts, confidence in the science and the need for good risk communication.

• "Science is credible if it operates independently of day-to-day politics and economic interests" 

 

The conflict surrounding plant genetic engineering. Why do scientists play only a minor role?

---

Green genetic engineering is still perceived in the first place as a risk. And although scientists have been conducting biological safety research for years, the belief that possible consequences for the environment of genetically modified plants have not been researched is widespread. While many politicians actually confirm this point of view, the voice of scientists is barely audible in the public debate. – GMO Safety spoke about this with Wolfgang van den Daele, a sociologist and member of the German National Ethics Council, and with Karl-Heinz Kogel, a biologist and agricultural scientist at the University of Giessen.

• Wolfgang van den Daele: "Unease finds a legitimate expression in risk."

• Karl-Heinz Kogel: "The central problem is the mixing of scientific and political arguments."

 

Cultivation of GM oilseed rape 
Is oilseed rape capable of coexisting?

---

The requirement of co-existence also applies to oilseed rape, however, the plants’ biological characteristics make its implementation more difficult. Not only, are rape flowers extremely attractive to insects, but oilseed rape can also survive outside the cultivated area. Above all though, oilseed rape seeds are capable of surviving in the soil for years. If GM oilseed rape is grown, such ‘volunteer’ plants would be a source of GMO presence in conventional crops.

As yet, no GM oilseed rape has been cultivated in the EU. Some say, an approval should be denied, because the plant is apparently “incapable to coexist”. But is this true? Is there any scientific support for this belief? – GMO Safety asked biosafety research experts about it.

• Questions put to Antje Dietz-Pfeilstetter, (BBA Braunschweig)
  "Coexistence requires greater effort, but is possible in principle.”

• Questions put to Broder Breckling, University of Bremen
  "The processes are highly variable, so coexistence rules must be sufficiently robust."

Epigenetics: Does it have consequences for the safety assessment of transgenic plants?

---

Our concept of genes has changed. It is far more complex than it was just a few years ago. How genes are regulated and how they influence the characteristics of an organism is not determined in the DNA alone. Other structures are also involved. Our knowledge of genes and their regulation is increasing rapidly.

But what does this mean for the safety of transgenic plants? Does the realisation of greater complexity mean that the consequences of genetic modifications are less predictable? GMO Safety discussed this issue with two experts.

• There is more to heritable changes than DNA – but does this make transgenic plants unsafe?

• Jens Freitag (GABI, German Plant Genome Research Programme): "Epigenetic effects occur with every hybridisation."

• Katja Moch (Öko-Institut): "The new findings have yet to be incorporated into the risk assessment of transgenic plants."

 

"Europeans are rejecting an effective tool for improving agriculture.

By Brian Johnson

---

He says of himself that he has been "a Green all his life". For years, as a senior member of staff at English Nature he followed the effects that new agricultural practices are having on biodiversity and the environment. Now he is calling for a change of direction. He sees genetic engineering as a tool for developing new crops that can make agriculture more sustainable. He presented his thoughts at the annual conference of the Ecological Society of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in Bremen.

• Biotechnolgy in agriculture – it may not be popular, but we may need it in Europe. Brian Johnson’s presentation in Bremen

 

Risk assessment for Bt plants: two concepts

---

The approval of Bt plants involves complex ecological relationships. The question is: are separate tests required for each plant and the non-target organisms it may potentially affect? Or is it possible to develop suitable standard tests? The scientific community is currently discussing two different concepts.

GMO Safety discussed this with Angelika Hilbeck and Jörg Romeis.

• Risk assessment for Bt plants: two concepts

• Interview with Jörg Romeis: "We conduct targeted tests on representative organisms".

• Interview with Angelika Hilbeck: "We filter out 10 to 15 species which we then examine in more detail."

 

Four questions; five experts: What constitutes ecological damage?

---

Like all forms of agriculture, the cultivation of genetically modified crops involves interactions with the surrounding ecosystem. One of the effects is change to biodiversity. But what is a result of ‘natural dynamics’ and what constitutes ‘ecological damage’? This term crops up frequently in discussion, but there is no consensus as to what it actually means. GMO Safety consulted a number of experts about this issue.

• Four questions put to experts from different sectors of society.