Team:Marburg/Human Practices/Ministry Environment

Ministry for Environment

The deliberate release of transgenic plants in Germany is blocked by domestic policies and those decisions are not necessarily based on a scientific concern.

An outstanding example is the Bt-MON810 maize, which was genetically engineered to express a transgene from an insect-repelling bacterium. Even though the GMO was approved as safe in Europe by the ZKBS and EFSA respectively, after years of cultivation in Germany, the German government used the "safeguard clause" and later the "opt-out" procedure in 2009 to prevent the cultivation and free sale of the maize. It is noteworthy that this decision was made without appropriate consultation of the central committee for biological safety (ZKBS)[1].

Following the advice of Jan-Wolfhard Kellmann from our ZKBS interview, we sought to understand the position of national and regional politics towards green genetic engineering. We therefore approached the Hessian Minister for Environment, Climate Protection, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Priska Hinz.

With regard to environmental protection, we were particularly interested in the topic of forestry. In recent years German forests have suffered greatly from heat waves, resulting bark beetle infestations and storms. The devastation has left bare scars on the hills of Germany.

The tree species most sensitively affected by these problems, spruce, beech, birch, ash and larch together account for 65% of the species represented in Germany. The damage recorded in the "Forest Condition Report 2020" revealed a frightening picture.

Overall Crown defoliation increased to 28% for all trees, the highest level since 1984, and the dieback rate had increased sevenfold within one year. This trend is likely to get worse in the coming years.

One option for preserving the existing ecosystem is to plant species with pest or heat resistance. However, when asked whether this is currently being considered, Ms. Hinz clearly denied it. According to the valid coalition agreement, genetic engineering was specifically excluded.
And yet this agreement emphasized that the decision was primarily made because "this corresponds to the wishes of consumers and Hessian farmers."

The same response emerged for the question on the future of agriculture. Although there were voices from expert circles, like the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland, that advocated integrated and open methods, this could not yet prevail, she said. According to a survey among the general public by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), 81% of respondents are against the release of GMOs in agriculture.
Nevertheless, they would continue to pursue the technology. At present one relies on breeding, but the hope whether this will be sufficient is no longer carried by the IPCC. Instead in the last climate report, the IPCC argued in favour of relying on genetic engineering for the fight against climatic damage.

In response to the question of how, considering the ban on cultivation, the current mass import of transgenic animal feed could be justified, Ms. Hinz referred to the promotion of the production of GM-free domestic protein feed. In view of the fact that the number of approvals for genetically modified animal feed has been increasing for years, success is still rather hypothetical.

Under the current conditions, our project with cell free systems of chloroplasts would nevertheless have from her perspective "great potential". Thereby the development of new production ways would profit and it would be a support of conventional breeding.

As sobering as the minister's feedback sounds all together, it gives us confidence in our vision of a Germany open to green genetic engineering, since the current barriers are primarily a reflection of the position of the population. Through descriptive education, productive discourse and ensuring consumer compliance with better safety measures in the field, we can accelerate the process of liberalization.

Source: [2]
Sources
  1. Zentrale Kommission für die Biologische Sicherheit, 2009: Stellungnahme der ZKBS zur Risikobewertung von MON810 – Neue Studien zur Umweltwirkung von MON810, https://www.zkbs-online.de/ZKBS/SharedDocs/Downloads/01_Allgemeine%20Stellungnahmen/04%20Pflanzen/Mais_MON810_Neubewertung_2009.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3, Stand: 10.10.2021
  2. Eichhorn J., Dammann I., Paar U. (2020): Forstliches Umweltmonitoring und Integrierter Klimaschutzplan Hessen 2025. In: Nordwestdeutsche Forstliche Versuchsanstalt, Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (Hrsg.), Waldzustandsbericht 2020 für Hessen. P. 6–8.