Technology will save us! When the soil is depleted, the water runs dry, and temperatures reach hellish levels, drones will take over our work and genetically modified plants will grow without any water at all. Right?
Sustainability expert Werner Lampert on new genetic engineering and its promises.
I don’t see genetic engineering solving any problems in agriculture. Back in the 1990s, when it first made its way into agriculture, the promise was that we would need far less fertilizer, far fewer pesticides on the fields, and that yields would be more stable. The result was that yields were not stable, far more synthetic fertilizer was used than before, and far more pesticides were applied.
The promise didn't last a moment. It was nothing more than propaganda.
Now we have this new genetic engineering technology (CRISPR/Cas), and once again we have no idea how the plants will react or how their environment will respond.
The main problem facing humanity, aside from global warming, is the loss of biodiversity, and this new genetic engineering is aimed precisely at reducing biodiversity, manipulating it, and destroying it. If we want food from an intact environment—which is the promise of organic farming—there is no place for genetic engineering; that much is clear!
What are the two or three most pressing issues facing agriculture today?
The most critical problem is global warming, and agriculture is fueling it. According to the IPCC, food production—when we include all emissions from agriculture and forestry, fertilizer production, and land-use changes, such as the conversion of rainforest areas for soybean cultivation—is responsible for up to 37 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Something really needs to be done about this.
What does this have to do with? With the crazy livestock farming practices we see in agriculture today, of course. Sixty-three percent of arable land in the EU is used to grow animal feed. And as if that weren’t enough, Europe uses an area of land outside Europe—such as in the rainforests of South America—the size of Germany to produce animal feed. Just imagine that.
Currently, about 828 million people are going hungry; unfortunately, the trend is on the rise again, and the EU is feeding vast amounts of protein to livestock! So, that’s one of the really big problems.
Another issue is soil fertility: We are systematically reducing soil fertility through the use of synthetic fertilizers, the use of toxins, soil compaction, and the loss of humus. Without fertile soil, there is no food, and there would be no people on this planet. The loss of humus is directly linked toCO2. Conversely, agriculture and forestry could sequester an enormous amountof CO2 in the soil. If we built up 0.4 percent of humus every year, humanCO2 emissions could be buffered—an incredible scale. This also requires a healthy forest. Not these monocultures, these destructive forests, these commercialized forests, but a forest suited to the climate and the challenges of this world, with heat-resistant species.
In your view, what distinguishes genetically modified plants from plants that have been bred?
Scientists at seed companies tell us: The new genetic engineering technique, CRISPR/Cas, is essentially the same process as conventional breeding. Yet this science has led agriculture into the catastrophe it finds itself in today. Conventional agriculture has been driven into the ground with vast amounts of power and money from our tax dollars. The fact that a cow must produce 14,000 to 18,000 kg of milk per year and is worn out after one or two lactations is the achievement of American science.
In the organic sector, we are finally seeing a resurgence of farmers actually owning the seeds and possessing the knowledge of how to propagate them. The fact that they can produce their own seeds is, in fact, the fundamental prerequisite for organic farming—indeed, it is the fundamental prerequisite for agriculture itself. And of course, this is being destroyed by the CRISPR/Cas method. This is yet another form of dispossession of farmers; once again, a branch of production—something that fundamentally belongs to them—is being taken away from them.
Do biotechnological methods such as CRISPR/Cas change your view of genetic engineering? If not, why not? If so, why?
CRISPR/Cas is, of course, a brilliant innovation—after all, two female scientists even won a Nobel Prize for it. The method should be used where it promotes peace and brings happiness, and should be kept out of agriculture.
In your view, is CRISPR/Cas a form of conventional genetic engineering?
Yes, CRISPR/Cas is a genetic engineering technique, just like the old ones, in the sense that people used to promise that it would allow for very precise intervention and manipulation. But once again, the consequences are impossible to predict. For me, it’s the same kind of genetic engineering, and it must, of course, be labeled. Consumers need to know whether they’re holding a genetically modified product in their hands. The European Commission must not back down on this; that would be terrible. That would truly be manipulating consumers and would be a serious blow to organic farming.
Is it possible to develop genetic engineering that is compatible with organic farming? What would that look like?
No.
If the circumstances (corporations, patents on seeds, genetically engineered pesticide resistance, etc.) were different, would genetic engineering be an option for quickly developing new varieties?
Organic farming does not use synthetic pesticides or toxins. Comprehensive monitoring mechanisms provide consumers with peace of mind. Genetic engineering makes no sense in organic farming anyway.
Africa is Europe’s—and probably America’s—dumping ground. Anything that’s being tested, anything that doesn’t work here or isn’t allowed, gets tried out in Africa. A farmer from Cameroon told me that they were paid to use a new seed variety. He planted the new variety in one of his fields and the old varieties—the ones his great-grandmother used to grow—in another. No one knew how to handle the modern seeds, and since they weren’t adapted to the local conditions, they didn’t thrive. The old seeds were naturally suited to the location and carried with them all the experience and knowledge accumulated over many decades. The genetically modified ones failed. He harvested nothing.
Thanks to his heirloom seeds, he had a good harvest and was able to feed his family.
Let’s draw on the biodiversity that still exists, rather than manipulating it.
Should the EU reconsider its ban on genetic engineering, for example, to bring wheat back closer to its wild or original form? Is there a need to reconsider the ban on genetic engineering?
No.
Food security is closely linked to food sovereignty.
Over the past few decades, politicians have led consumers to believe that food can come from anywhere in the world, and that we should buy it wherever it is cheapest.
Local food security was no longer valued at all. For nearly 20 years now, our company has been promoting regional agriculture and food sovereignty, helping consumers realize just how valuable these are. Food must come from the very places where we live and where our lives unfold. We must not relinquish the right to determine for ourselves how agriculture is practiced and how food is produced. The right to self-determination is an integral part of food sovereignty.
How do you respond to this line of reasoning: While scientists at institutions such as the PIK in Potsdam point out the need to eat less meat, Matin Quaim (University of Bonn), for example, argues that it is time to reconsider the ban on genetic engineering and that the share of organic farming should by no means be increased. Biodiversity areas also need to be reevaluated. He argues that organic farming requires too much land and yields too little.
Unfortunately, there are scientists who have a different understanding of science. They have tunnel vision and refuse to consider broader insights. We often hear that the Russian war in Ukraine will bring famine to the world; in Africa, people will starve because there will be too little wheat. That is why we must abandon biodiversity areas; we must forget the first tentative steps toward making conventional agriculture sustainable. We must continue as we have been, 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 next stage of escalation. The way Putin wages his wars is exactly how things are going in agriculture. Every year—or every decade—there are new escalations in agriculture. The final stage of escalation is, of course, genetic engineering.
We leave everything as it is: we are destroying the life in the soil, its fertility, and its humus. We are destroying biodiversity, even though it is the foundation of our existence.
Without biodiversity, there is no fresh air, no clean water, and no life on this planet. We continue to destroy biodiversity, but we have genetic engineering to make up for it.
These are the stages of escalation we’re entering. And I’m curious to see what comes after this genetic engineering, because CRISPR/Cas will be just as much of a failure—it won’t solve the problems facing agriculture any more than the old methods could.
We need to look at the web of nature; we need to view it as a whole. What is being destroyed, and what environmental disasters is conventional agriculture causing for everyone? How must agriculture be transformed so that it can be productive again without causing destruction? We don’t need the escalation of genetic engineering for that.
In your view, is there currently a kind of backlash against organic farming?
I’ve been involved in organic farming for 60 years, and I’ve seen this happen a few times. Of course, it’s a real disaster for chemical companies and seed producers that organic farming is slowly gaining such a strong foothold and that consumers are turning to organic products. This is yet another attempt to discredit organic farming and push it back. I think we are now living in a time when organic farming will face significant challenges. This makes it all the more important for organic to become synonymous with sustainable agriculture. We are on our way there.
There will be no future for us humans on this planet unless we produce food sustainably and treat the planet with care.
We must use these setbacks we’re facing now to reaffirm and clarify the core of organic farming even more clearly. Organic farming, combined with sustainability, is the future; there is no alternative to organic farming. There simply isn’t one.
There is no alternative when it comes to food. Industrialized agriculture does not feed the world. Fifty-six percent of global agricultural production comes from family farms. Ninety-eight percent of farms are smallholder farms—we must never forget that. When we speak of industrialized agriculture, we are speaking of capital-driven, fully capitalized agriculture, but not of the reality of life in which people live, from which people derive their sustenance.
How can agriculture adapt to climate change?
Either agriculture will find ways to cope with global warming, or global warming will wipe out agriculture. It’s that simple. Building up humus will become essential—humus storesCO2, but it also stores a lot of water and can absorb it more quickly; at the same time, fertile soil yields higher crop yields. Mixed cropping systems, such as agroforestry, and old, hardy varieties will make a comeback.
When you consider climate change, war, energy costs, and so on, is agriculture currently at a crossroads?
Yes, definitely.
Which way are we going?
What is happening in the world and in Europe right now is having a massive impact on agriculture, and above all, on consumer behavior. Because when prices rise by 20–30 percent and energy costs skyrocket, many people will naturally have to watch their spending closely, manage their money carefully, and consider what they can afford—and they will naturally turn to the cheapest foods, which are the most disastrous for the world and the health of this planet. But we’ll just have to live with that now, and I think it will take 2–3 years for us to get through this and come out the other side.
But we will use the next 2–3 years to make organic farming even more resilient and effective, and to integrate it even more closely with sustainability.
Because, as I've said before, there is no alternative to organic.
The interview was conducted by Cathren Landsgesell. Excerpts from it appeared in Pragmaticus.