Technology will save us! When the soil is depleted, the water dries up and the temperatures become hellish, then drones will do the work for us and genetically modified plants will grow without any water at all. Or will they?
Sustainability expert Werner Lampert on new genetic engineering and its promises.
I don't see genetic engineering solving any problems in agriculture. In the 1990s, when it was introduced into agriculture, it was promised that we would need much less fertilizer, much less poison in the fields and that yields would be more stable. The result was that yields were not stable, far more artificial fertilizer was used than before and far more pesticides were used.
The promise didn't last a moment. It was nothing more than propaganda.
Now comes the new genetic engineering(CRISPR/Cas), again we have no experience of how the plants react, how the plants' environment reacts.
Apart from global warming, the main problem facing mankind is the loss of biodiversity, and this new genetic engineering is aimed precisely at reducing biodiversity, manipulating it, destroying it. If we want food from an intact environment, which is a promise of organic farming, genetic engineering has no place, that is quite clear!
What are the two or three most pressing problems facing agriculture today?
The most important problem is global warming, and agriculture is fueling it. According to the IPCC, food production is responsible for up to 37 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions if we include all emissions from agriculture and forestry, fertilizer production and land use changes, such as the conversion of rainforest areas for soya cultivation. Something really needs to happen.
What does it have to do with, of course, with the crazy livestock farming that we have in agriculture today. 63 percent of arable land in the EU is used to grow animal feed. And that's not all, Europe uses an area of land outside Europe, such as the rainforest in South America, the size of Germany for animal feed. You have to imagine that.
Around 828 million people are currently starving, and unfortunately the trend is rising again, and the EU is feeding vast amounts of protein to livestock! So that's one of the really big problems.
Another is the fertility of the soil: we systematically minimize the fertility of the soil by using artificial fertilizers, poisons, compaction and the loss of humus. Without fertile soil there is no food, there are no people in this world. At the same time, the loss of humus is linked toCO2. Conversely, agriculture and forestry could bind an incredible amount ofCO2 in the soil. If we built up 0.4 percent humus every year, humanCO2 emissions could be buffered - an incredible amount. This also requires a healthy forest. Not these monocultures, these destructive forests, these capitalized forests, but a forest that is adapted to the climate and the challenges of this world, with heat-resistant species.
What do you think is the difference between genetically modified plants and plants that have been modified by breeding?
Scientists from the seed companies explain to us: The new genetic engineering, CRISPR/Cas, is actually the same process as the normal breeding process. But this science has led agriculture to the catastrophe it is in today. Conventional agriculture has been driven to the wall with a lot of power and money from our taxes. The fact that a cow has to give 14,000 to 18,000 kg of milk a year and is broken after one or two lactations is the achievement of American science.
In the organic sector, the idea that farmers really do own the seeds and know how to propagate them is finally starting to come back to life. The fact that they can produce their own seeds is actually the basic condition of organic farming, the basic condition of agriculture par excellence. And that is of course destroyed with the CRISPR/Cas method. This is yet another expropriation of the farmers, another branch of production is being taken away from them, something that originally belongs to them.
Do biotechnological methods such as CRISPR/Cas change your view of genetic engineering? For what reasons not/already?
CRISPR/Cas is, of course, a brilliant idea, and two scientists have won a Nobel Prize for it. The method should be used where it brings peace and happiness and should leave agriculture alone.
Do you consider CRISPR/Cas to be conventional genetic engineering?
Yes, CRISPR/Cas is a genetic engineering process, just like the old one, in the sense that it was also promised in the past that it would be possible to intervene and manipulate very precisely. But again, the effects cannot be estimated. For me, it is the same kind of genetic engineering and it must of course be labeled. Consumers must know whether they are holding a genetically modified product in their hands. The European Commission must not become weak on this, that would be terrible. That would really be manipulating consumers and would be a serious blow to organic farming.
Is genetic engineering compatible with organic farming conceivable? What would it look like?
No.
If the circumstances (corporations, patents on seeds, genetically engineered pesticide resistance, etc.) were different, would genetic engineering be an option to quickly develop new varieties?
No synthetic pesticides or poisons are used in organic farming. Continuous control mechanisms give consumers security. Genetic engineering makes no sense for organic farming anyway.
Africa is the dustbin of Europe and probably America too. Everything that is tried out that doesn't work or isn't allowed here is used in Africa. A farmer from Cameroon told me that they were paid to use a new seed. He had sown the new seeds on one of his fields and the old varieties from his great-grandmother on another. Nobody could handle the modern seed and it wasn't adapted to the local conditions, it didn't thrive. The old seeds were naturally site-specific and carried with them all the experience and knowledge of many decades. The genetically manipulated seeds died. He harvested nothing.
With his ancient seeds, he had a good harvest and was able to feed the family.
Let's draw on the biodiversity that still exists instead of manipulating it.
Should the EU reconsider the ban on genetic engineering, for example to bring wheat back closer to the wild/original form? Is there a need to reconsider the ban on genetic engineering?
No.
How do you experience the current debate on food security and wheat prices?
Food security is closely linked to food sovereignty.
In recent decades, politicians have deceived consumers into believing that food can come from anywhere in the world and that we have to buy it where it is cheapest.
Local food security was no longer valued at all. For almost 20 years, our company has been bringing regional agriculture and food sovereignty into play and making it clear to consumers what a valuable commodity they are. Where you live, where your life takes place, that's where your food must come from. We must not relinquish the right to determine how agriculture is run and how food is produced. The right to self-determination is part of food sovereignty.
How do you counter this line of argument? While scientists from PIK Potsdam, for example, point out the need to eat less meat, Matin Quaim (University of Bonn) argues that it is time to reconsider the ban on genetic engineering and not to increase the proportion of organic food under any circumstances. Biodiversity areas should also be reconsidered. Organic farming requires too much land and the yields are too low.
There are scientists who unfortunately have a different understanding of science. They have tunnel vision and do not allow for comprehensive findings. We often hear that the Russian war in Ukraine will bring hunger to the world, that people in Africa will starve because there will be too little wheat. That's why we have to give up biodiversity areas, we have to forget the first tentative steps of conventional agriculture towards sustainability. We have to carry on as before, and of course we need genetic engineering to be able to deliver.
But we don't need genetic engineering to solve these problems! I see CRISPR/Cas as the new escalation stage. The way Putin wages his wars is the way things are going in agriculture. There are new escalations in agriculture every year or every decade. The final stage of escalation is, of course, genetic engineering.
We are leaving everything as it is: we are destroying the life in the soil, the fertility, the humus. We are destroying biodiversity, even though it is the basis of our existence.
Without biodiversity there is no fresh air, no healthy water, there is no life on this earth. We continue to destroy biodiversity, but we have genetic engineering to make up for it.
These are the escalation stages we are entering. And I am curious to see what comes after this genetic engineering, because CRISPR/Cas will be just as much of a failure because it will not solve the problems of agriculture, just as the old one could not.
We have to look at the web of nature, we have to look at it as a whole, what does conventional agriculture destroy, what environmental disasters does it cause for everyone? How must agriculture be transformed so that it can be productive again without destroying? We don't need the escalation of genetic engineering.
In your view, is there a kind of backlash against organic farming at the moment?
I've been involved in organic farming for 60 years, I've experienced it a few times. Of course, it's a real disaster for the chemical companies and seed producers that organic farming is slowly becoming so strong and consumers are turning to organic. This is yet another attempt to denigrate organic farming, to push it back. I think that we are now living in a time when organic will have a very difficult time. This makes it all the more important that organic becomes synonymous with sustainable agriculture. We are on the way there.
There will be no future for us humans on this planet if we do not produce food sustainably and treat this planet sustainably.
We must use these blows that we are now receiving to once again more clearly define the core of organic. The future belongs to organic combined with sustainability, there is no alternative to organic. There is none.
There is no alternative to food. Industrialized agriculture does not feed the world. 56 percent of agricultural production worldwide is produced by family farms. 98 percent of farms are smallholdings, we must never forget that. When we talk about industrialized agriculture, we are talking about capital-occupied, totally capitalized agriculture, but not about the reality of life in which people live and from which people feed themselves.
How can agriculture adapt to climate change?
Either agriculture will find ways to deal with global warming, or global warming will wipe out agriculture. It's as simple as that. Building up humus will be elementary - humus storesCO2, but also stores a lot of water and can absorb it more quickly, while at the same time fertile soil provides a higher yield. Mixed crops, such as agroforestry, and old, robust varieties will return.
When you look at climate change, war, energy costs, etc., is agriculture at a crossroads right now?
Yes, definitely.
In which direction is it going?
What is happening in the world and in Europe at the moment is having a massive impact on agriculture and, above all, on consumer behavior. Because if prices rise by 20-30 percent, if energy costs trot away like this, many people will of course have to count exactly what they can afford with their money, and they will naturally reach for the cheapest foods, which are the most disastrous for this world and the existence of this planet. But we will have to live with that now, and I think it will take 2-3 years to dive through and survive.
But we will use the next 2-3 years to make organic even more resilient, even better and to combine organic even more with sustainability.
Because, as we have already said, there is no alternative to organic.
Interview from June 2022
The interview was conducted by Cathren Landsgesell. Excerpts appeared in Pragmaticus.
