Does Agriculture Minister Özdemir censor critical scientists, here of organic farming?

2023-04-19 07:54:10

Does Agriculture Minister Özdemir censor critical scientists, here of organic farming?

Josef Koch, Bavarian Agricultural Weekly Journal, in AGRARHEUTE*

© Imago/A. Friedrichs

The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, under its head Cem Özdemir (Greens), suppress the publication of a critical study on the climate impact of organic farming in a scientific journal published by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL)? Internal emails suggest yes.

My grade : I kept the original title, adding the subject. The Minister ? Probably not. The ministry or people from the ministry? Undoubtedly yes.

A review of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) declined a scientist’s critical discussion paper on organic farming. Read how it happened.

© Ströbel/private Prof. Dr. Herbert Stroebel

Is this already censorship or a justified refusal? This is the question posed by Professor Herbert Ströbel, Emeritus University Professor in Triesdorf. He wanted to publish a critical discussion paper on the effects of organic farming on the climate and the environment in the journal “ reports on agriculture » (BüL). The publisher is the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, under the direction of the Green Minister of Agriculture Cem Özdemir.

After a few round trips that lasted more than six months and a multitude of emails, the director of the publication of BüL, Helmut Emsbach, turned down Ströbel’s contribution in mid-November. For Ströbel, one thing is certain: The BMEL is not interested in professional discourse on organic farming. He cleverly paraphrases the word censorship.

Is criticism of organic farming undesirable?

Asked by the Bavarian agricultural weekly newspaper (BLW), Emsbach denies. Her ” employer allows freedom of expression, within the legal framework “. The editor continues: A critical debate on the diversity of agricultural themes, as well as a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of conventional agriculture and organic agriculture are desired and published, insofar as […] their content expertise is favourable. »

However, one expert was clearly in favor of the publication of Ströbel’s article, another once morest.

Increasing the share of organic farming means shifting emissions

But let’s go in order. In his article, the scientist from Triesdorf, Professor Ströbel, comes to the conclusion that organic farming, due to its lower yield level, needs more area compared to conventional farming. The necessary additional surfaces are thus subtracted from a more ecologically valuable possibility of use, with better absorption of GHGs and greater biodiversity, such as forests or nature protection.

The choice of organic farming therefore leads, through the increase in the areas required, to an increase in greenhouse gases and a decrease in biodiversity. In short, if Bavaria and Germany expand their organic farming, they displace emissions to other countries.

And here is the job!

Such a critical contribution clearly does not correspond to the agricultural policy objectives of Federal Minister of Agriculture Cem Özdemir. He wants more organic farming for more biodiversity and for better climate protection.

The editor of BüL, Helmut Emsbach, quickly realized this. At the end of May, he therefore requested an expert report (peer review) of Ströbel’s article. Professor Harald von Witzke, an agricultural economist from Berlin, carried out a critical examination of the article, which has since been revised, at the request of the editor of the journal, in order to verify the facts.

Result ” analysis [de l’auteur Ströbel, ndlr] is correct and complete. The discussion paper has the merit of having exhaustively unmasked the central methodological error of the traditional evaluation of the environmental impacts of organic agriculture. This work constitutes an important scientific contribution. »

This result clearly did not suit the management of the publication and probably also the publisher, the BMEL. In an email, Emsbach had nevertheless approved the expertise of the Berlin agricultural economist von Witzke.

In an internal e-mail sent by the director of the publication Emsbach to his superior, he wrote in particular: “ And here is the job! It was to be expected. The emeritus are tenacious. “This email dating from the end of June 2022 was obviously inadvertently sent outside. He is in possession of the weekly [du Bayerisches Landwirtschaftliches Wochenblatt].

What the BMEL of the case

Is Federal Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir personally involved in this affair? Asked by the weekly, a spokesperson for the BMEL responds in the negative.

« Federal Minister Özdemir or State Secretary Bender at no time exercised any influence on the decision to publish “, can we read in the response of the press service of the ministry.

Second expertise requested for the study on organic farming

Nevertheless, Emsbach argues that ” Ströbel’s study touches on many areas of agricultural research with complex facts and only an assessment […] is therefore not […] not easy ».

In agreement with the publisher of BüLthat is to say the BMEL, Emsbach commissioned Rostock scientist Professor Sebastian Lakner to carry out a new peer review (expertise) at the beginning of July 2022. According to Ströbel, there had never been any question before of a second expertise. ” Apparently, we needed another expertise, this time acceptable, to reject the text “, assumes the scientist from Triesdorf.

Despite a request from the weekly to the director of publication of BüLEmsbach, and Professor Lakner, the expert report has not been published.

According to his own information, Professor Ströbel also did not receive Lakner’s expertise despite several requests. In a detailed email addressed to the Bavarian weekly, Professor Lakner certainly set out the basic standards for scientific publications. In particular, he listed seven fundamental criteria for his expertise. If one or two criteria are not met, he recommends “ regularly a refusal unless problems in the text can be corrected with small changes and at a reasonable cost, he explains.

But he does not put obviously not the expertise available, if only for the sake of fairness » towards the author quoted by the weekly.

A contradiction with the concept of the magazine

We can therefore only make assumptions regarding what actually figured in his expert report. Because in mid-November, Ströbel received a written refusal. The reason for this is, among other things, that ” …the article does not bring decisive new knowledge. These are the conditions for publication in “reports on agriculture“. »

The rejection letter is followed by a list of facts regarding the growth of organic farming in Germany. This was probably intended as a vindication of errors [présumées] of Ströbel in his critical contribution. But that’s not what it was regarding.

Apparently the management of BüL does not know the concept of its own journal. Because on the homepage, in the chapter Conceptwe can read that the journal publishes “ original scientific articles, agricultural policy positions […] Priority is given to articles dealing with current issues in the specialized fields of production, food and market policy, social and societal policy as well as the development of rural areas, but also protection issues. environment and landscape maintenance. »

The Ströbel case does not seem to be an isolated case

The Ströbel case does not seem to be an isolated case. According to information from weekly paperother renowned scientists have already had bad experiences with publications in the BüL.

One of them, who wishes to remain anonymous, commented on the case as follows: The exchange of tactical and dilatory emails is the expression of the fact that neither the BLE [Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung] nor his organ, the BüLcannot be considered an independent and objective institution of science”. You should also see the limits of impartiality “. These have now become apparent, he said. The scientist is not surprised by this behavior. He has worked for many years with the BLE and knows his political compass ».

The Rostock scientist Lakner points out that established international scientific journals reject 90-95% of submitted articles; even for the reports on agriculture “, there is probably a considerable rejection rate, “ but i don’t know him ».

_____________

* Source : Does Minister of Agriculture Özdemir censor critical scientists? | agrarheute.com

1681938741
#Agriculture #Minister #Özdemir #censor #critical #scientists #organic #farming