NEW GENOMETECHNIQUES (NGT) –A RISKY CORPORATE
DISTRACTION FROMREAL SUSTAINABLE
SOLUTIONS
Questions & Answers regarding pesticide use
and other impacts on agriculture
1

IMPRINT

AuthorLars Neumeister
Redaction
Matthias Wolfschmidt
EditorJörg Rohwedder
foodwatch e.V.
Brunnenstraße 181
10119 Berlin, Germany
Tel. +49 (0) 30 / 24 04 76 - 0
Fax +49 (0) 30 / 24 04 76 - 26
Email info@foodwatch.org
www.foodwatch.org
Bank account for donations
foodwatch e.V.
GLS Gemeinschaftsbank
IBAN DE 5043 0609 6701 0424 6400
BIC GENO DEM 1 GLSDesignTina Westiner
Publication date
31. January 2023

2

CONTENTWHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?				4BACKGROUND 					41. A re there any problems, that 			could be solved by NGT, that cannot
be solved by existing methods?

5

2. W ill genetic engineering enhance 			crop diversity?

7

3. H ow much time is needed for a full 		
conversion to pathogen resistant varieties
by NGTs and how much will it cost?

8

4. W ill growing of genetically engineered 		
crops lead to the dispossession anddisempowerment of farmers?

9

5. H ow much pesticide reduction could 		
be achieved when planting geneticallyedited crops?

10

6. C ould European farmers benefit 			from genetic engineering?

13

7. H ow possible is it that genetically 			engineered resistance works on
the long term?

14

CONCLUSION 					15SOURCES					16

3

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
Agriculture in the European Union to date has been
largely1 free from the cultivation of genetically modified
organisms (GMO). However, newer methods of genetic
engineering, so called New Genomic Techniques(NGTs), are now being discussed as a way to reduce
pesticide by developing new pest and/or disease
resistant varieties or certain crops. There is a narrativethat is becoming increasingly heard that geneticallymodified crops are needed to achieve the “Farm toFork” goals by 2030. This has been stressed by multiple
stakeholders (see e.g. EC 2022).

BACKGROUND
For decades, genetic engineering has been proposed as an
instrument to reduce pesticide use (see e.g. Avery 1995)2.

The toxin genetically inserted into maize and cotton
kills selected pest species, however this meant that
other pest species benefited from the new ecologicalniche and a (temporary) reduction of chemical control.
Outbreaks of new pest populations diminished thepesticide reduction by the toxic plants, especially incotton (Rui et al. 2015). Naturally (and foreseeably[see Doyle 1999]), the target pests relatively quickly
developed resistance to the ever-presenting toxin in
the plant (Ordosch et al. 2016, Shrestha et al 2018,
Gassmann et al. 2013). Despite, intensive research, fungi
resistant GMOs have so far never entered the market.
In the last decades, genetic engineering, whenused and applied, has led to a “herbicide lock-in”(Desquilbet et al. 2019): herbicide-resistant weeds
and environmentally damaging pesticide use(Schulz et al. 2021; Gujar & Peshin 2021).

Doyle stated in 1999 that: “Biotechnology can be partof the solution by making agriculture more productive
and reducing pre-harvest losses to insects, plantdiseases, and competition with weeds. Improving
the nutritional quality of staple foods and enhancing
the resistance of crops to drought, cold, and salt will
also increase productivity and upgrade human diets”(Doyle 1999).

OLD PROMISES REPEATED

However, as the first genetically modified plants werecommercially released in 1996, they were made resistantto the herbicide glyphosate. These plants can be sprayedwith the weedkiller and won’t be harmed. The businessmodel is to sell patented, genetically engineered seeds
together with the pesticide(s)3. Herbicide resistant crops
are still the most common GMOs. Herbicide tolerant crops
are also a major focus of genome editing (see JRC 2021).

What is new is the method: instead of transferring
genes (transgene) from one species to another, genome
editing changes the DNA of species.

Maize and cotton were genetically modified in a way
to make them toxic to the larvae of some specific pest
species. The results of this technology vary strongly.
1

Spain and Portugal are the only countries with a small GMO production.

2

S ee e.g. Avery DT (1995): Saving the planet with pesticides and plastic.
The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield farming. Hudson Institute3

 here are now several crops with resistance to one or several herbicides
Tincl. glyphosate.

Proponents of new genetic engineering technologies(NGT) promise the same as proponents of transgenic
GMOs. Tripath et al. (2022): “Genome editing has
the potential to reduce inputs such as fertilizers,
pesticides, etc., increase yields, improve nutrition,and develop climate-resilient crops.”

However, the technology is not as easy, precise andtargeted as promoted. Scientists still know very little
about interactions between DNA and cell functioning,
and a targeted DNA snippet may appear in different
locations and cutting them all out, or editing all, may
lead to unforeseen effects (e.g. off-target effects [seeModrzejewski et al. 2020 and Sturme et al. 2022]).
Genome editing and genome research could certainly
help to understand genetics and the influence of DNA
sequence on certain natural effects, but the applicationof gene-edited crops in agriculture raises numerous
questions and problems.
4NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES

1.

— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

ARE THERE ANY PROBLEMS, THAT
COULD BE SOLVED BY NGT, THAT CANNOT
BE SOLVED BY EXISTING METHODS?

If designed properly, ecologically based, preventive
plant protection can successfully reduce pesticide
use to a strict minimum or even zero. However, thebiological drivers of pesticide use: lack of diversity on
different levels (genetic, spatial, biological, temporal)
and over-fertilization must first be addressed. Measures
which are suitable to achieve higher diversity aredescribed in Chapter 5.1 in the foodwatch report“Locked-in Pesticides“4.
However, the current “pesticide lock-in” driven by asocio-economic race to the bottom cannot be solved
technologically (ibid.). Promoters of genome editing
sell this technology as innovation and a “golden bullet”
solution for all agri-environmental problems. But
innovation is not synonymous with progress.

Neve (2018), for example, proposes the genetic
modification of black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides)
to solve a black-grass problem. Black-grass is only aproblem in narrow cereal crop rotation and became
herbicide resistant due to herbicide mis- and overuse(Pallutt & Augustin 2022). Therefore, a traditional
measure (proper crop rotation) could solve this weed
problem (see Weisberger et al. 2019).
The next table shows the list of all major pests,
weeds and diseases in cereals in Germany derived
from the IPM (Integrated Pest Management) guidelines(DBV 2021). Almost all pests, weeds and diseases canbe prevented by a wider, more diverse crop rotation,
which means nothing more than allowing more time
between similar/same cereals and planting a higher
diversity of crops.

Investing in solutions with an unknown outcome while
feasible solutions exist shows a lack of foresight andviolates the common sense precautionary principle.
4See https://www.foodwatch.org/fileadmin/-INT/pesticides/2022-06-30_Pesticides_
Report_foodwatch.pdf (25.01.23)

5

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3PEST, WEED, DISEASE

PRIMARY PREVENTATIVE IPM SOLUTION(S)weedswider crop rotation, mechanical weedingaphidspromotion of biodiversity (natural enemies), N-reduction, control of volunteer grain*

Gall midges (Contarinia tritici,
Sitodiplosis mosellana)

wider crop rotation

Cereal leaf beetle(Oulema lichenis, O. melanopus)

wider crop rotation

viruses

proper timing of seeding, field hygienic measures, control of volunteer grain

Typhula-blight (Typhula incarnata)wider crop rotation

Cereal disease (Tapesia yallundae)

wider crop rotation

Blackleg (Gaeumannomyces graminis)

wider crop rotation

Septoria (Septoria tritici)

wider crop rotation

Mildew(Blumeria graminis f.sp. tritici)

soil management, control of volunteer grain, proper timing of seeding,N-reduction, lower seed density

Yellow rust(Puccinia striiformis f.sp. tritici)

wider crop rotation, soil management, control of volunteer grain,
proper timing of seeding, resistant varieties

Brown rust(Puccinia spec.)

wider crop rotation, soil management, control of volunteer grain,
proper timing of seeding, resistant varieties

Pyrenophora tritici-repentis;
Drechslera tritici-repentis

wider crop rotation, soil management, control of volunteer grain,
resistant varieties

Sooty mold (Alternaria spp.,
Cladosporium spp.,
Epicoccum spp and others=

wider crop rotation, soil management, control of volunteer grain,
proper timing of seeding, choice of early varieties

Septoria nodorum,
Septoria avenae f. sp. triticea B.)

wider crop rotation, soil management, choice of suitable varieties

Fusarium culmorum,
Fusarium graminearum

wider crop rotation, soil management, choice of resistant varieties

Claviceps purpurea

wider crop rotation* volunteer grain are grain plants which germinate from seeds
from the last harvest

Before new technologies with unknown risk potential
are being introduced all other means of control mustbe evaluated and supported. When ecologically based

IPM is implemented, neither pesticide use, nor genetic
technologies will be needed.

6

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES

2.

— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

WILL GENETIC ENGINEERING ENHANCECROP DIVERSITY OR LEAD TO EVENHIGHER GENETIC UNIFORMITY?

Genetic uniformity is a main driver of pesticide use
especially in cloned5 crops and it is a possible threat
to food security. The “great famine” in Ireland wascaused by the introduction of a new pathogen to an
extremely vulnerable, rather new growing system(repeated potato cloning of mainly two varieties
without crop rotation). In the past 60 years, traditional,
open-pollinated varieties have already been largely
replaced by commercial high-yielding and hybrid
varieties (Gmeiner et al. 2018). Jaradat (2013) estimatesthat up to 75% of genetic diversity in wheat was lost in
the last century. New forms of breeding may accelerate
the decline of genetic variety, especially when genetic
engineering is under the control of a few global(pesticide) corporations.
5

Reproduced by vegetative propagation (most tree fruits, vines banana, potato)

The next figure6 shows the turnover of the six largest
global seed corporates by value. These companies havea share (by value) of about 50% of the global seedmarket. Four of these companies are also the largest
pesticide sellers (by value).
How likely is it that these four companies develop pest
and disease resistant varieties and give up the pesticide
business? Are they really likely to create sufficiently
diverse varieties to establish a resilient growing system
independent from pesticides? It seems rather unlikely,
unless they can successfully implement a new businessmodel or profit model?
6 ll numbers in the figures from the fiscal reports 2020/2021 of the individualA
company. Dollar values (given by Syngenta, Corteva) were converted to Euro at aconversion rate of 0,846.

Figure 1:

VALUE OF SALES OF THE LARGEST PESTICIDE/SEED*COMPANIES BY PRODUCT TYPE *Sales (billion €)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

BayerCropScience

Syngenta

Corteva

BASF

Limagrain & Partners*

KWS**

Sales of pesticides (€)
Sales of seeds (€)*Group sales 2020/21 incl. some non-seed related business | ** 2020/2021* All data were taken from the latest financial reports of theindividual companies. The reports are publicly available on
the website of the companies.

7

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES

3.

— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

HOW MUCH TIME IS NEEDED FOR A FULLCONVERSION TO PATHOGEN RESISTANT VARIETIESBY NGTS AND HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

Let’s take the example of one of the most pesticide
intensive parts of agriculture: vineyards. Pesticide use
in vineyards is particularly high7, and a large share of
the EU fungicide volume is also used in vineyards.
This has historic reasons and is an excellent illustrationof a path-dependency. Sulphur and copper-based
fungicides were discovered in the 19th century as
THE solution to the “mildews8”, and other solutions(e.g. resistant varieties9) were mostly abandoned. Muchof the pesticide volume applied to control mildews
is still elementary sulphur, but in conventional wine
growing also numerous synthetic fungicides are applied.
Growing fungi resistant vine varieties is a sustainable
solution, if genetic diversity and spatial dis-connectivity(mosaic pattern of small blocks of varieties) can beensured. There are already numerous traditionally bredfungi resistant varieties, and when managed properly,
pesticide use is largely reduced (see Lenz 2021).
The promotion of these existing varieties should
continue, and a pesticide levy could certainly
encourage farmers to change from pesticide
intense varieties to the existing robust varieties.
Genetically engineered, fungi resistant vine varieties
do not yet exist on commercial scale. Promoters ofgenome edited vines anticipated in 2020 that thefirst glass of GE wine would be available by 2030.10
That means that genome edited fungi resistant vines are
not a solution to reach the targets of the Farm to Forkstrategy which calls for 50% reduction in the use andrisk of chemical pesticides by 2030. Even if they would
exist now a conversion would take rather decades.
7

By volume and treatment frequency.

8Please note that “mildew” is not a specific species. There are numerous genera in twolarge taxonomic families: Peronosporaceae & Erysiphaceae.

9In the 19th century it was already known that varieties from specific origins areresistant to certain pests/diseases. (see solution to Phylloxera)

10h ttps://euroseeds.eu/app/uploads/2020/06/20.0278.1-Innovation-to-preservetradition-fungi-resistant-grape-vine.pdf

There are 3.2 million hectares of vines grown in the
EU11 and each hectare has about 2500-4000 plants.
That means several billion genome edited grapevines
would need to be planted to achieve a substantial
pesticide reduction.
Ideally, a high diversity of vine varieties should beplanted to ensure resilience, and to reduce other
unforeseen risks, for example climatic risks or new
pathogens. Currently, many varieties are geneticallyclosely related or even genetically the same, because
they are often clones of a somatic mutation12 or
inbreeds (e.g. Chardonnay). Pinot noir, Pinot blancand Pinot gris are for example genetically nearly thesame, however because of their grape colour, they arecounted as three different varieties; they share thesame genotype (see e.g. Vezulli et al. 2012).
Because of the lack of diversity, developing and testingof truly resistant and genetically diverse varieties may
take decades.
Another question regards costs. In Germany, a vineyardrenovation costs about €30,000 per ha. That might belower in other countries, but even at total planting costsof €5 per vine plant, a 100% conversion to different
varieties would cost €40-64 billion throughout the EU.
Wine production and income in that conversion time
would go down dramatically because each vine needs
about three years after planting to have a full harvest.
And, what happens if the pathogens “outsmart” theresistance afterwards? Or if other, perhaps more severe,pathogens appear? Are gene editing companies going tohave insurance systems to cover the lost investment?
11h ttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Vineyards_in_
the_EU_-_statistics#:~:text=The%20European%20Union%20(EU)%20had,the%20
world’s%20wine%2Dgrowing%20areas.

12 somatic mutation is not a mutation in the seeds, but in the vegetative materialA(e.g. a branch). Cuttlings from these branches form new varieties, but these varieties
usually share the same genetics as the original variety.

8NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES

4.

— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

WILL GROWING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEEREDCROPS LEAD TO THE DISPOSSESSION ANDDISEMPOWERMENT OF FARMERS?

With patented genetically engineered fruit and vegetable
crops potentially entering the market there is a certain
risk that patent holders will promote thesevarieties with “leasing” models and that farmers’
dependency on the patent companies increases.
In commercial apple cultivation, it is now common
to grow “club varieties”. The protected varieties arelicensed to the grower, and he/she must manage themaccording to specific rules. Producers who want to bepart of “the exclusive club” must agree to a contract
with the patent/brand owner for the cultivation andpurchase of the fruit and pay license fees13. The ownerof the variety has the right to reject or exclude growers
from the “club”.
The contract obliges the grower to certain quality
criteria (shape, size, colour), and controls thedestination and the marketing of the product. The
grower is not allowed to sell directly to consumers or
any other third party not included in the contract.
The grower is also not allowed to reproduce patented
trees or extent the cultivated area. The growers are
only allowed to manage the trees according to thecontract. He/she is basically not the owner of the tree,
he/she “leases” the trees. The model of production
basically leads to dispossession and disempowerment.
The grower has no rights on the harvest, the patent/
brand owner organises the marketing and the grower
has little influence over the price. He/she is only aservant to the patent/brand owner.
13

Patenting of crop varieties and/or trademarks are
not an exclusive problem associated with geneticallyengineered crops. It is a general trend. However,with genome editing this trend may accelerateand create even stronger dependencies. A recent
report by Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) et al.
(2022) showed that pesticide trader and seed seller
Corteva already applied for 1430 “NGT patents”. The
authors conclude: “This increased use of patents, in
combination with genetic modifications, is likely
to result in a significant increase in the number ofseeds and food with properties that are covered bya patent. This reduces access to biological diversity
for plant breeders and farmers, and creates legal
uncertainties around the use of seeds.”
Other dependencies will occur regarding the use of
seed material from the harvest for the next crop.
Many crops are pollinated by wind or insect pollinators.
In the case that different traits of GMO crops aregrown in a certain proximity genetic material will
be exchanged by wind and/or pollinators. The next
generation from these cross-pollinated seeds may have a
mixture of unknown and maybe unwanted properties.
This means that growers have to buy “clean” seedmaterial for every season.

See: https://provarmanagement.com/pink-lady/questions-answers/

9NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES

5.

— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

WILL THERE BE PESTICIDEREDUCTION WHEN PLANTINGGENETICALLY EDITED CROPS?

Research on genome editing in the European Union isfinancially supported with millions of public money14.
However, there are no numbers published about thepesticide reduction potential in the European Union.
None of the current research reviews (by Modrzejewski
et al. 2019; EC 2021; JRC 2021; Touzdjian Pinheiro
Kohlrausch Távora et al. 2022) published data on how
many pesticides treatments could be potentially saved
in a particular modified crop.
Almost 80% of the EU’s pesticide use comprises
herbicide and fungicide use (see next Figure 2),
and there are currently no genetically engineered
solutions available (or in development) which could
substantially reduce these uses.
14h ttps://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/meps-demand-eufunding-for-research-into-gene-editing-surveillance/

Modrzejewski et al. (2019) compiled a list of researchon genome-editing in plants for increased resistance tobiotic stress (pathogens [fungi, viruses, bacteria]). The
following table shows the list of crops and pathogens from
Modrzejewski et al. (2019) with an own evaluation on
the EU pesticide use reduction potential. The targetedindications (crop-pathogen combinations) are not major“pesticide consumers” in Europe: either the cultivatedarea has a small share (cucumber, tomato, spring wheat,citrus) and/or the pathogen is not the major cause ofpesticide use in this crop. Viruses and bacteria for example
are usually not controlled with pesticides15. In citrus crops,
the main pests are arthropods (mites and insects), and invineyards, the mildews (see above).

15

Sometimes, the vectors (often aphids) are controlled using insecticides.

Figure 2:

PESTICIDE USE IN THE EU-27 BY USE TYPE IN 2020

EU-27 (2020)
Pesticide sales (a.i.)

Other Pesticides

Insecticides and Acaricides

Plant Growth Regulators

Herbicides

Molluscicides

Fungicides and Bactericides

10NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

CROP

CY*

TRAIT

PATHOGEN RESISTANCE,IMMUNITY TO:

EU PESTICIDE REDUCTIONPOTENIAL

Cacao

USA

FR

Phytophthora tropicalis

Low, no EU crop.

CucumberIsraelVR

Cucumber vein yellowing virus(Ipomovirus); the potyviruses,
Zucchini yellow mosaic virus;
Papaya ring spot mosaic virus-W

Low, small area under cultivation.
Not the primary pathogens
treated with pesticides.

Grapefruit

USA

BR

Citrus canker

Low, small area under cultivation.
Not the primary pathogen
treated with pesticides.

Grapevine

China

FR

Botrytis cinerea

Low, small area under cultivation.
Not the primary pathogen
treated with pesticides.

Maize

USA

FR

Northern Leaf Blight (NLB)

Not a primary pathogen treatedwith pesticides.

OrangeChina

BR

Citrus canker

Low, small area under cultivation.
Not the primary pathogens
treated with pesticides.

Rice

USA,
France,China,
Philippines

FR

Rice blast

Low, small area under cultivation.

BR

Bacterial blight

Low, small area under cultivation.

FR

Resistance to powdery mildew

Low, small area under cultivation.

Rice

BR

Pathogen Xoc RS105

Low, small area under cultivation.

Rice

BR/
FR

Bacterial blight and rice blight

Low, small area under cultivation.

Rice

VR

Rice tungro disease (RTD)

Low, small area under cultivation.

Rice
Rice

TomatoGermany,
UK

FR

Powdery mildew

Low, small area under cultivation.

TomatoSaudi
ArabiaVR

Tomato yellow leaf virus

Low, small area under cultivation.

TomatoUSA

BR

Different pathogens including
P. syringae, P. capsici and
Xanthomonas spp.

Low, small area under cultivation.

Springwheat

China, USA

FR

Powdery mildew

Low, small area (<1%) undercultivation.

FR: Fungal resistance;
VR: Virus resistance;
BR: Bacteria resistance
CY: Countries where research/development is carried out.

11

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3In addition, most of the pathogens, such as
powdery mildew16 in spring wheat17,18 developed by
Calyxt for the US market, can be avoided throughsimple agronomic measures (seesee question 1).
1 The
compilation of Modrzejewski et al. (2019) does not

1216

 here are 172 known genomes of Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici which evolve rapidlyTthrough hybridization (see Sotiropoulous et al. 2022)

17h ttps://calyxt.com/calyxt-launches-u-s-field-trials-with-university-of-minnesota-forpowdery-mildew-resistant-spring-wheat-variety/18

In Europe winter wheat is the most common wheat grown.

contain a single NGT plant with resistance against
arthropods (insect pests and spider mites), a reductionof insecticides/acaricides through NGTs is therefore
not foreseeable.
When it comes to pesticide reduction in theEuropean Union, the potential of these genetic
engineering-technologies seems to be currently
nearly zero.

12

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES

6.

— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

WOULD GENETIC ENGINEERINGACCELERATE THE “RACE TO
THE BOTTOM”?

So far, farmers in the European Union can for somecrops achieve higher prices, because they are certified
GMO free. This advantage would be lost, when
genetically modified crops are widely planted.

at lower costs than non-GE adopters. But if all farmers
planted genetically modified crops, then all would haveequal conditions. The result of this would be a further
decline in farm incomes (Jordan 2002).

As thoroughly described in the chapter “The race tothe bottom“ in the foodwatch report “Locked-in
pesticides” most farmers have no control over the
prices they can achieve. This means they need to either
reduce costs per produced unit or increase volume at
the same costs. However, because all farmers (globally)
try to do this, prices have been generally declining.
That is the reason why farming is highly subsidized inmost industrial countries.

A widespread use of GMOs on conventional farms
could endanger organic farming, because geneticallyedited material will be distributed via wind, pollinators
or during transport of seeds. So far, organic agriculture
has rightfully (see Wickson et al. 201619) rejected theuse of genetically modified crops and ensures that
produce is GMO-free. Future Organic farming might be
at risk, as no GMO free products could be guaranteed.
19

The promise of the GMO promoters is that EU farmers
growing new genetically engineered crops might beable to produce at lower costs per unit or more units13“ Unless NPBTs (new plant breeding techniques – note by foodwatch) can offer
empirical evidence of benefits sustainable over the long-term and move beyond thesame type of hypothetical promises of technoscientific fixes for complex political andsocio-ecological problems, which have been perpetuated for decades without delivery,
then they will not be awarded a place in organic agriculture.”

13

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES

7.

— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

IS IT POSSIBLE AT ALL, THATGENETICALLY ENGINEERED RESISTANCEWORKS ON THE LONG TERM?

So far, weeds, insect and pathogens have always rather
quickly developed new populations which can survive
pesticide spraying and overcome plants resistance.
Evolution usually “outsmarts” human technology. Evenif scientists could develop for example a permanent lateblight resistant potato, how can it be certain that not
another pathogen will enter the open ecological niche?
After all, a monoculture of a well fertilised crop is anavailable energy source, and it seems rather unlikelythat no pest and/or pathogen will attempt to utilise thisresource. Just to hope that no other pathogen, pest willtake the opportunity is not enough. Long-term fieldtesting must be required before any GMO canenter the market.

14Long-term testing is also needed because:“Breeding alone won’t achieve anything. Breedingmust go hand-in-hand with research of theenvironment we are breeding for. A growing
environment differs between regions, [which have]different soils with different water-holding capacity,and climates [that may be] warmer or cooler, wetteror dryer. We also need to consider that the climate
is changing. (…)” Asseng (2022).2020h ttps://www.foodnavigator.com/article/2022/08/18/meet-the-scientists-unlockingthe-genetic-potential-of-wheat-to-boost-global-food-security

14

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

CONCLUSION

NGTs so far only seems to be an empty promise.
Genetically modified crops suitable to achieve
the “Farm to Fork” objectives are not available.
It seems, they won’t be available within the next
10-15 years. Contrary to what proponents claim,
under the current circumstances crops created by
NGTs should be considered a high-risk technology
as they pose a number of risks, as outlined below:
large corporations will use NGTs to control seedmaterial via patents/branding and to make farmers to
100% dependent on the companies;
NGTs under control of these companies may resultin higher genetic uniformity causing higher pesticideuse, a business model which would serve companies
like BayerCropScience, Corteva, Syngenta and BASF,
which sell seeds and pesticides;
low diversity is a real threat to food safety, because
the risk that biotic or abiotic stressor cause a total
loss is higher in monocultures.

A high diversity, and locally adjusted, robust varieties
are needed to cope with the effects climate change andinvasives species.
The fundamental question is whether society wants
to rely on new, high-risk technologies to solve crises
caused by human-made technologies? Do we want toforce farmers to become locked in further by the sameor similar interest groups that control the pesticides,
when low tech, low risk solutions to most pest anddisease problems already exist?
For many decades, the pesticide and biotech
corporations have used their economic power
to install positive narratives about new technologies
into the minds of the public and decision makers.
As demonstrated with the “old” gene technology
or with synthetic pesticides, they have createdutopian narratives and sought to use their power
to create technological lock-ins with a high degreeof farmer dependency (Clapp & Ruder 2020). To
believe that “genome editing” will be an exception
is more than naive.

15

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

SOURCES

Avery DT (1995): Saving the planet with pesticides and plastic. The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield farming. Hudson InstituteClapp J & Ruder SL (2020): Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-Edited Crops, and the Politics of Sustainability. Global
Environmental Politics 20:3 https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00566
DBV (2021): Leitlinie zum Integrierten Pflanzenschutz im Getreidebau. Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV)
Desquilbet M, Bullock DS & D’Arcangelo FM (2019): A discussion of the market and policy failures associated with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant
crops. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 17 (5)326-337 https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1655191
Doyle E (1999): Environmental benefits and sustainable agriculture through biotechnology. Executive Summary of the Ceres Forum at Georgetown
University; 10–11 November; Washington, DC.
EC (2021): Study on the status of new genomic techniques under Union law and in light of the Court of Justice ruling in Case C528/16 EN.
SWD(2021) 92 final. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. European Commission (EC).
FoE Europe et al. (2022): Exposed. How biotech giants use patents and new GMOs to control the future of food. Published by GLOBAL 2000 – Friendsof the Earth Austria, Friends of the Earth Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), Arche Noah, IG Saatgut – Interessengemeinschaft für gentechnikfreie Saatgutarbeit and Arbeiterkammer Wien. October 2022
Gassmann AJ; Petzold-Maxwell JL, Clifton EH; Dunbar MW, Hoffmann AM, Ingber DA & Keweshan RS (2013): Field-evolved resistance by western cornrootworm to multiple Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in transgenic maize. PNAS 111 (14) 5141-5146
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317179111

Gmeiner N, Kliem L, Ficiciyan A, Sievers-Glotzbach S & Tschersich J (2018): Gemeingüterbasierte rechte an saatgut und sorten als treiber für eine sozial-ökologische transformation des pflanzenbaus. in Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Hrsg.),Treffpunkt Biologische Vielfalt, Interdisziplinärer Forschungsaustausch im Rahmen des Übereinkommens Über Die Biologische Vielfalt (Bonn: BfN Skripten), 487.
https://www.ioew.de/publikation/gemeingueterbasierte_rechte_an_saatgut_und_sorten_als_treiber_fuer_eine_sozial_oekologische_transfo
Gujar GT & Peshin R (2021): INDIAN PERSPECTIVE: SUSTAINABILITY OF BT COTTON IS A MATTER OF CONCERN NOW!.Front. Agr. Sci. Eng., https://doi.
org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021415

Jaradat A (2013): Wheat landraces: a mini review. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture (25) 1: 20-29. doi:
https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v25i1.15376. Accessed 10 Oct. 2022.
Jordan CF (2002): Genetic Engineering, the Farm Crisis, and World Hunger, BioScience 52 (6): 523–529,
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0523:GETFCA]2.0.CO;2Lenz R (2020): Erfolgsmodelle ohne Pestizide III. Ein Gespräch mit Robert Lenz. In: Das Gift und wir: Wie der Tod über die Äcker kam und wie wir das
Leben zurückbringen können. Forster M und Schürmann Ch (Hrsg.). Westend Verlag. Frankfurt/Main
Modrzejewski D, Hartung F, Lehnert H, Sprink T, Kohl C, Keilwagen J & Wilhelm R (2020): Which Factors Affect the Occurrence of Off-Target Effects
Caused by the Use of CRISPR/Cas: A Systematic Review in Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 11. 10.3389/FPLS.2020.574959
Modrzejewski D, Hartung F, Sprink T, Krause D, Kohl C, & Wilhelm R (2019): What is the available evidence for the range of applications of genome-editing as a new tool for plant trait modification and the potential occurrence of associated off-target effects: a systematic map. Environmental Evidence
8:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0171-5
Neve P (2018): Gene Drive Systems: Do They have a Place in Agricultural Weed Management? Pest Management Science 74: 2671–2679.
Ordosch D, Narem R & Szczepaniec A (2016): Effectiveness of Bt Maize against Corn Rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Species Composition in South Dakota Ten Years Following the Introduction of Transgenic Maize. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology 32(1); 59-70
https://doi.org/10.3954/1523-5475-32.1.59

Pallutt B & Augustin B (2022): Einfluss der Fruchtfolge auf die Verunkrautung. Influence of crop rotation on weed infestation 30. Deutsche Arbeitsbesprechung über Fragen der Unkrautbiologie und -bekämpfung, 22. – 24. Februar 2022 online. Julius-Kühn-Archiv, 468, 2022 147

16

NEW GENOME TECHNIQUES— P O S I T I O N PA P E R 2 0 2 3

SOURCESRui C, Ceddia C, Areal FJ & Park J (2015): The impact of secondary pests on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops.https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12363
Schulz R, Bub S, Petschick LI, Stehle S & Wolfram J (2021): Applied pesticide toxicity shifts toward plants and invertebrates, even in GM crops. Science 372 ( 6537) 81-84. DOI: 10.1126/science.abe1148
Shrestha RB, Dunbar MW, French BW & Gassmann AJ (2018): Effects of field history on resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm, Diabrotica
virgifera virgifera LeConte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). PLoS ONE 13(7): e0200156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200156
Sotiropoulos AG, Arango-Isaza E, Ban T. et al. (2022): Global genomic analyses of wheat powdery mildew reveal association of pathogen spread withhistorical human migration and trade. Nature Communications 13, 4315 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31975-0
Sturme MHJ, van der Berg JP, Bouwman LMS, De Schrijver A, de Maagd RA, Kleter GA, Battaglia-de Wilde E (2022): Occurrence and Nature of Off-Target Modifications by CRISPR-Cas Genome Editing in Plants. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. DOI: 10.1021/acsagscitech.1c00270
Touzdjian Pinheiro Kohlrausch Távora F, de Assis Dos Santos Diniz F, de Moraes Rêgo-Machado C, Chagas Freitas N, Barbosa Monteiro Arraes F, Chumbinho de Andrade E, Furtado LL, Osiro KO, Lima de Sousa N, Cardoso TB, Márcia Mertz Henning L, Abrão de Oliveira Molinari P, Feingold SE, Hunter
WB, Fátima Grossi de Sá M, Kobayashi AK, Lima Nepomuceno A, Santiago TR, Correa Molinari HB. CRISPR/Cas- and Topical RNAi-Based Technologies for Crop Management and Improvement: Reviewing the Risk Assessment and Challenges Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture. Front Bioeng
Biotechnol. 2022 Jun 28;10:913728. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.913728. PMID: 35837551; PMCID: PMC9274005.
Tripathi L, Dhugga KS, Ntui VO, Runo S, Syombua ED, Muiruri S, Wen Z, Tripathi JN (2022): Genome Editing for Sustainable Agriculture in Africa..Front
Genome Ed. 2022 May 12;4:876697. doi: 10.3389/fgeed.2022.876697.
Vezzulli S, Leonardelli L, Malossini U, Stefanini M, Velasco R, & Moser C. (2012): Pinot blanc and Pinot gris arose as independent somatic mutationsof Pinot noir. Journal of experimental botany, 63(18), 6359–6369. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers290
Weisberger D, Nichols V & Liebman M (2019): Does diversifying crop rotations suppress weeds? A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0219847.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219847

Wickson F, Binimelis R & Amaranta Herrero (2016): Should Organic Agriculture Maintain Its Opposition to GM? New Techniques Writing the Same Old
Story. Sustainability 8(12):1105 DOI: 10.3390/su8111105

17