2024-02-09 09:17:33
Fact check: Steffi Lemke, Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (Germany)
Ludger Weß chez Willi l’agriculteur*
A Alex Reed contribution from Dr. Ludger Weß, who looked into the statements of Environment Minister Steffi Lemke and discovered many inconsistencies.
Environment Minister Steffi Lemke gave an interview (behind a toll booth) to the FAZ on December 9, 2023 regarding the new regulation of plant breeding technologies. The interview contains numerous assertions regarding new technologies and the plants they produce – assertions with which the minister justifies her refusal of the Commission’s proposals for new regulations. But are these claims true? A fact check.
Lemke: “What is missing, for example, is the vision of interactions and ecosystems. This is why I in no way agree with the statement that these plants in principle present fewer risks to the environment and health. »
Nobody claims that. The scientific consensus is that these plants do not present higher risks for the environment and health than those which have been produced by mutations (= random genetic engineering). To assume a higher risk lacks a scientifically justified reason for concern. Only in this case can the precautionary principle be applied according to the criteria of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Commission. However, given that random mutagenesis causes many more unintentional genetic changes in the genome than “genetic scissors” (several thousand for sure compared to potentially a few), we can even assume on the contrary that the risk profile of new plants is inferior [plus favorable] to that of unregulated plants obtained by random mutagenesis.
Lemke: “First, modern genetic scissors can penetrate regions of the genome that are protected by nature from modification. These areas are not easily accessible by traditional methods. »
This is grossly false. There are no regions of the genome protected by nature once morest modification. In principle, every base in DNA can be changed upon mutation by irradiation or chemicals, which can eventually lead to a mutation in a gene. There are therefore no regions of the genome that are more or less “accessible”. On the contrary: random mutagenesis (also referred to as genetic engineering by the CJEU) can cause significant damage to the genome, during which essential plant genes can be lost, duplicated or rearranged. It is therefore exactly the opposite: traditional methods can cause significant changes, even chromosomal breaks, which can uncontrollably influence the expression of hundreds or thousands of genes at once. Control of such events currently does not take place in plant breeding. However, we even find these varieties in the organic trade.
Ms. Lemke’s assertion is not found in the specialized scientific literature, but was formulated by the anti-GMO NGO Testbiotech. It is based on an erroneous interpretation of a 2022 publication. The lead author of the study, Professor Detlef Weigel, director of the Max Planck Institute of Biology in Tübingen, publicly contradicted this erroneous interpretation.
Lemke: “Secondly, Crispr-Cas is currently still introduced into the cell using classical genetic engineering methods. It is generally accepted that unintended effects may occur in this case. »
Fake. It is true that in fundamental research, the Cas9 gene is sometimes still introduced as a transgene. But this is not the case for varieties used in agriculture. Here, the genetic scissors are not permanently introduced into the plant cells and the intervention is not done randomly, but with a guide RNA which precisely recognizes the target sequence and triggers the modification there. This technology is so safe that it is now authorized in medicine.
Lemke: “And third, the goal of using genetic scissors is to modify the properties of plants. I would like us to study, before any large-scale distribution in the fields, whether the new plants can, for example, be invasive or modify natural species by crossing. »
This statement makes no sense. Any new selection, whether carried out with genetic scissors, random mutations, transgenic methods or by biological selection according to Demeter guidelines, has the aim and consequence of modifying the characteristics of the plants. And any new varieties can potentially cross-breed or become invasive. If we take Ms. Lemke’s criteria as a reference, any form of plant breeding, even that of the amateur gardener, should be strictly regulated.
Lemke: “An important difference compared to other methods such as irradiation or classical breeding is that Crispr-Cas allows a multitude of targeted modifications to be carried out in the genetic heritage. »
Fake. Under the current EU proposal, the modification must not exceed 20 base pairs to be considered an NGT product [NGT-1]. The molecular mechanism – double strand break then repair of the strands by the natural cellular mechanisms of plants – is exactly the same as for a natural mutation. However, in the case of genetic scissors, the relevant gene sequences and their location in the genome are precisely known, which is not the case in mutagenesis. In conventional mutagenesis, which is also used for varieties used in organic farming, many more genes are modified in an untargeted manner and chromosome breaks and rearrangements can occur, so that thousands and more genes are concerned. We do not know the extent and effects of these modifications, which are sometimes serious, because no control of these modifications is carried out before being placed on the market. In this sense, traditional plant breeding methods should rather be classified among high-risk technologies, more so than genetic scissors.
Lemke: “Crispr-Cas also makes it possible to reach genetic regions that are rarely modified by other methods. If we intervene in a targeted manner and have no knowledge of the consequences, the rule for me is: first evaluate the effects, then decide on large-scale use of the new method. »
False (see above). We have much less knowledge regarding the consequences of untargeted interventions, as is currently the case. If Ms. Lemke is serious regarding her assertion, she should subject conventional selection of mutations to very strict conditions.
Lemke: “It’s not regarding banning Crispr-Cas. But I want to make it as safe to use as possible. »
This is an assertion of protection bordering on a lie. Conventional genetic engineering is also not “banned”, but high regulatory hurdles, distance rules, complaint possibilities and opt-out rules lead to a de facto ban. Ms Lemke has made it clear on other occasions that she wants to introduce the same high hurdles for genome editing as for genetically modified plants for which transgenes are used. This would amount to a ban.
Lemke: “It is not yet possible to know whether the use of pesticides will actually be reduced. Other developments of organisms from ancient genetic engineering have been the subject of this promise, and it has not been kept. This is why such predictions must be carefully considered. »
Fake. There is extensive literature on transgenic insect-resistant plants, which demonstrates that these plants can significantly reduce the use of insecticides. In addition, a study published in July 2020 on the ecological impact of genetically modified varieties resistant to insects and herbicides between 1996 and 2018 shows that the use of pesticides decreased by 775.4 million kg and that the quotient of The associated environmental impact decreased by 18.5%.
dr. Ludger Wess
Additional literature
Leopoldina and DFG demand science-based positioning in the EU debate on new genomic techniques in plant breeding
Green Network for evidence-based politics: We REALLY know the difference
ad hoc statement, October 19, 2023: For science-based regulation of plants bred using new genomic techniques in the EU (ad hoc notice, October 19, 2023: pour une réglementation fondée sur la science des plantes produites au moyen de nouvelles techniques génomiques in the UE)
National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina | German Research Association | Union of German Academies of Sciences: Paths to a scientifically based, differentiated regulation of genome-edited plants in the EU (Académie Nationale des Sciences Leopoldina | German Research Foundation | Union des Académies Allemandes des Sciences: Voies vers une réglementation différenciée et scientifiquement fondée des plants au génome édité in the UE)
Offener Brief von über 400 Pflanzenforscherinnen und -forschern aus Deutschland: Appell an Bundesminister/-innen, sich für evidenzbasiertes europäisches Gentechnikrechts einzusetzen (open letter from more than 400 plant science researchers from Germany: appeal to federal ministers to call for evidence-based European legislation on genetic engineering)
Alex Reed posts represent the opinion of the author.
_______________
* Source: Fact check Steffi Lemke – Farmer Willi
1707502454
#Fact #check #Steffi #Lemke #Federal #Minister #Environment #Nature #Conservation #Nuclear #Safety #Consumer #Protection #Germany
