Jul 17, 2003

Research Live

Send

Discussion about genetic engineering and safety research

Worlds apart in the trial field

Maybe it was simply too hot for heated debate. A colourful group of opponents of genetic engineering visited the trial fields in the Brandenburg village of Dahnsdorf, where the Federal Biological Research Centre tests genetically modified plants. Detailed scientific arguments on the one side, wholesale political criticism on the other: there was a great deal of talking, but all at cross-purposes.

Exhausted after lengthy discussion. Members of the alliance and representatives of the BBA’s Institute of Integrated Plant Protection: Prof. Ulrich Burth (centre), Bernd Hommel and Stefan Kühne (right)

Safety research: For whom and to what end? Two interviews

Thomas Janoschka, Barnim Alliance Against Genetic Engineering. “It’s not the consumer who benefits from safety research - it’s the companies who want to improve their products and make money.”

Dr. Bernd Hommel, project director at the BBA. “We don’t want to see new varieties of potato on the market which require greater amounts of chemical pesticides, regardless of whether they are genetically modified or conventionally bred.”

Herbicide-resistant maize. Bernd Hommel relates his experiences with cultivation trials. In stark contrast to the usual tidy maize fields, several weeds of considerable height can be found growing in between the maize plants here. This is due to the way in which the herbicide works which is used in conjunction with the transgenic plants. It acts via the leaves, not the soil and is only sprayed at an early growth stage of the maize plants. More weeds appear later on.

Safety research under surveillance. “Certain dangers can be spotted, others not” (Alliance). “Our trial with transgenic potatoes is reliable. Pollen drift is virtually irrelevant with potatoes” (BBA). The caravan (left) provides accommodation for security staff, who are there to protect the trial since the destruction in spring 2002.

“It’s time to lift the lid on these trials.” The Barnim Alliance Against Genetic Engineering called on its members to visit the BBA trial fields in Dahnsdorf, seventy kilometres southwest of Berlin.**

As well as many plots where the concepts of integrated plant protection and organic farming are being tested, there are also trials with genetically modified maize, oilseed rape and potatoes.

When the twenty or so activists arrive at the trial site with their bicycles, the BBA researchers are already expecting them. For some time now they have been hoping to talk to the action group, some of whom they suspect of being responsible for the destruction of two trial fields last year. Since then the site has been guarded round-the-clock.

Bernd Hommel in particular, who is in charge of GM plant trials at the BBA, has resolved to do a lot of talking. He doesn’t intend to stop at explaining the primary goal of integrated cultivation – as little pesticide as possible, as much as necessary. He also aims to show that there is no magic formula, just different strategies with advantages and disadvantages.

Bernd Hommel believes that all methods deserve to be tested with realistic experiments - organic farming just as much as genetically modified plants.

“The GM maize risk” and research efforts

Genetically modified maize with herbicide resistance is growing over here, oilseed rape over there. The BBA researchers are keen to find out whether the system based on herbicide-resistant plants and a complementary broad-spectrum herbicide really can reduce pesticide use and promote biodiversity. Bernd Hommel can see both pros and cons. He stresses the need for independent concomitant research. A little further away there are some artificial nests for mason bees. Here the aim is to examine whether pollen from GM rape, which is growing within eyeshot, is ingested by the bees and what then happens to it in their intestine.

The opponents, however, are not much interested in hearing about research efforts, costly experimental set-ups and careful interpretations of the findings. They have fundamental reservations about green genetic engineering, which leave no place even for biosafety research.

In their view, plant genetic engineering is a risk technology – for them that goes without saying and needs no further justification. “The majority of consumers do not want any genetic engineering in their food. All the surveys show this.” The activists have made it their business to impose this will against the interests of big business.

The sophisticated arguments of the BBA researchers have a hard time in the face of such certainty. “Rape pollen drifts much further than first thought, doesn’t it? Have you tested for outcrossings at a distance of three kilometres?” probes one of the alliance members. “We can’t find anything,” Bernd Hommel replies. “Conventional rape is growing over there, on the side of the road. When we examine the individual plants there we can find no sign of outcrossing. It is so rare, we would have to look at each individual seed.”

Conciliatory research.

For the opponents, every outcrossing is a form of contamination. In their view, freedom of choice, which they demand in the name of the majority of consumers, can only come about by renouncing green genetic engineering. This also makes safety research pointless. “Its only aim is to give genetic engineering a positive image and improve its acceptance. In the end safety research only serves to push through genetic engineering in agriculture,” says Thomas Janoschka from the alliance.

It remained peaceful that afternoon in Dahnsdorf. People listened to one another and exchanged their views. Occasionally, when wandering across the extensive trial fields, there were friendly exchanges about farming, gardening and the merciless summer drought. But as far as genetic engineering was concerned, it quickly became clear that there was no common ground. These were two alien worlds that had simply collided.