MON810 cultivation ban: consequences for research

"This will have consequences for Germany as a research location."

In mid-April 2009 Germany’s Agriculture Minister, Ilse Aigner, banned the cultivation of the genetically modified Bt maize line MON810. All the leading German scientific organisations have criticised the decision and fear there will be negative consequences for bioscience research in Germany. VBIO, Germany’s association of biology, biosciences and biomedicine, was one of the organisations that protested against the ban on MON810. GMO Safety spoke to the VBIO President, Rudi Balling.

There are a few more recent studies on the effects on non‑target organisms , which the ministry cites along with a whole list of older publications. The new trial systems are not in my view very realistic and are not really suitable for drawing conclusions about environmental risks in the field. For instance, water-fleas do not normally eat maize flour and ladybirds do not normally feed on the eggs of the Mediterranean flour moth. From a purely theoretical point of view, the new findings are by no means compelling. In fact they are – to put it mildly – controversial in terms of the trial design and the interpretation of the results.
What we are left with is the knowledge that these non-target organisms suffer most when treated directly with Bt protein, that they suffer somewhat less when they ingest Bt plants and least of all when not treated with Bt protein. This is not surprising, since Bt proteins are insecticides. They are also used in organic farming. Does this mean that farmers must not use any insecticides in future?

GMO Safety: How does a political decision like this affect day-to-day research work and the mood among scientists?

Rudi Balling: The minister’s decision affects scientific research as well as the commercial farming of genetically modified plants. Her own department is having to halt research programmes that have been investigating the coexistence of conventional and GM maize (MON810) since 2005. In Bavaria the CSU party is even announcing that all research on genetically modified plants will have to take place under glass in future, instead of in field trials. Biosafety research in the field has already been stopped in Bavaria on instructions received from the government.

This will have consequences for Germany as a research location, even though Germany’s Minister for Education and Research, Annette Schavan, is trying to counteract the trend with a round table discussion on plant genetic engineering. Plant biotechnology is a technology of the future that offers lots of opportunities, but which is not given the opportunity to prove itself. Lots of colleagues working in crop sciences who are affected by the decision are angry that people are trying to use scientific findings to justify what are obviously political decisions. Plant biotechnology is far too important to be used as fuel for an election campaign.

After years of uncertainty, arguments and, frequently, personal attacks, the mood is one of disappointment and weariness. After all, it is not only politicians and field protesters who make life difficult for crop scientists. The inability – or unwillingness? – of universities to support approved release experiments and stand up for the freedom of scientific research, as happened in 2008 in Giessen and Nürtingen-Geislingen, has led to deep disappointment among many colleagues. I can’t blame them if they look for alternative opportunities outside Germany.

GMO Safety: A ban like this also changes the climate in society for bioscience research. What does this mean for the future of biosciences in Germany?

Rudi Balling: Some of the biosciences have a very hard time making a niche for themselves in Germany. Not because they are not doing excellent work, but because the climate is becoming more and more hostile to research. Despite the government’s efforts, e.g. its high-tech strategy, plant biotechnology is probably one of the endangered disciplines.

I don’t believe that the biosciences as a whole are at risk in Germany yet. There are other areas of biotechnology that are less controversial than plant genetic engineering. Medical (‘red’) biotechnology is widely accepted and industrial (‘white’) biotechnology has become an integral part of everyday life. If we want to make biosciences fit for the future, we need to address this contradiction.

The biosciences and biomedicine have always had a particularly hard time justifying themselves because they concern all of us personally. This means, firstly, that each individual is an expert in what concerns him and knows best what is good for him. And secondly, no one acts entirely rationally on issues that concern them personally. It is particularly difficult to put across complex facts in this situation. When issues become too complex for individuals to follow, they look for advice from people they believe they can trust, in this case primarily among the non-government organisations. Bioscientists need to become more active here and be more self-assured when defending their expertise. There is still much to do at this level – for the VBIO as well.