The meeting, which took place in the Great Semper Hall at ETH Zurich, was organised by the Zurich Basel Plant Science Center (1). Alexander Zehnder, President of the ETH Board, delivered the opening address to a packed hall and emphasised, "Only healthy people can extricate themselves from the poverty trap." Plant biotechnology was the basis for a sustainable and better future for the poor of the world.

President of the ETH Board opens the meeting. large

Waiting for resistant potato

By contrast, Urs Niggli, Director of the Research Institute for Biological Agriculture sees no potential in genetic technology today to find solutions to the problem. While he agrees that genetic technology has a place in fundamental research but considers that, "Contrary to organic farming, genetic technology hardly does anything to enhance sustainability." When asked the classical question about the possible use of genetic technology in organic farming Niggli said that he was still waiting for a potato that was resistant to potato late blight. When it did appear, he said, he would take a close look at it.

Critical voices from the audience

It was not only newly developed genetically modified (GM) products that should be looked at more closely, said a member of the audience, but also imported plants and products from conventional breeding, like the hybridisation of a cultivated plant with a grass from China. Othmar Käppeli from the Centre for Biosafety and Sustainability (BATS) criticised that nobody was paying sufficient attention to such things as allergies caused by the cross-breeding with or the import of exotic plants or the driving out of indigenous plants because of the turmoil surrounding genetic technology. GM opponents also interjected with criticism. For example, Florianne Koechlin from the Basler Appell against Genetic Technology finds fault with the fact that over 90 per cent of all genetically modified seed belonged to the US biotech company Monsanto. Moreover, the greater part of plants cultivated globally were based on a single herbicide (Roundup) and a single insect resistance, the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. Koechlin said that this was why she felt that the promised diversity and innovation was lacking.

Activists from the group "Lindau against GM wheat" protesting in front of ETH's Great Hall. large

Activists in the break

In the break participants were greeted by three impatient activists from the group "Lindau against GM wheat" who handed out flyers for "GM-free Switzerland" and prominently displayed a banner, "Broken promises–where are the results from Lindau?"

Panel discussion with Dieter Imboden, Ueli Suter and Urs Niggli (from left). large

Dieter Imboden, President of the Research Board at the National Science Foundation, said, "It would be catastrophic to renounce research based on genetic technology." From the point of view of the National Science Foundation the prohibition of field trials was an unecessary restriction of research. It was also clear, however, that democratic decisions had to be accepted because research did not stand above democracy. ETH Vice-president Research, Ueli Suter, emphasised that in view of its huge potential research had to be carried out on the technology, without restrictions and fear.

Christoph Sautter (standing) addressing the panel with Martin Küenzi, Klaus Peter Rippe, Philippe Roch, Stefan Kohler and Rainer Schweizer (from left). large

New research programme to analyse field releases

At the end of his address Imboden revealed the National Science Foundation's plans for the future. At the moment the foundation was looking at a proposal from the State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER) to launch a National Research Programme (NRP) with the provisional title of "Chances and Risks of GMO Field Releases". The project is to comprise four modules on the themes of cultivating methods, environmental biotechnology, risk perception and the inter- and transdisciplinary assessment of genetically modified organisms. At present the Research Board of the National Science Foundation is clarifying whether field trials would be needed before this NRP could be launched and whether BUWAL, as the relevant licensing authority, would grant permission for such field trials.

Anja Matzk from the seed firm KWS said that after the trials in a closed system, open-field trials were absolutely essential as a "proof of concept“. Christof Sautter from the ETH Institute of Plant Science added that the transfer from the vegetation hall to the open field was not simply quantitative and he demonstrated the different genetic expression of plants in various environments: greenhouse, vegetation hall and open field. Current legal regulations were clearly too restrictive according to Sautter. And he pointed to a Catch-22 element of the situation; "We have to go into to the field to conduct releases in order to obtain permission to conduct field releases." He said he felt as though we were faced with a de facto moratorium for genetic research.

"A judicial field release"

The hurdles of the bureaucratic licensing process and the length of time required to obtain permission for a next field trial did not seemed to be entirely definite even after the drama, which lasted for many years, to obtain permission for the GM wheat trials in Lindau. "Lindau was a pure judicial trial," was how Rainer Schweizer, Professor of Law from HSG, put it. ETH's first trial had been a new situation for everyone involved, and everyone had learned lessons. It had represented a leading case, which would certainly never occur again, explained lawyer Stefan Kohler in his talk. Moreover, the precedent had cleared up many important formal and material aspects of the licensing procedure. These results could now flow into the revised ordinance on field releases of GMO which will go into the consultation round shortly.

Nor does BUWAL Director Philippe Roch want to stand in the way of new field trials: "With the new law on genetic technology the legal framework has been clarified". The licensing process would now have to be speeded up. The law stipulates 90 days, in so far as there are no procedural errors. Christoph Errass, who is working on the new release of GMO regulations at BUWAL, considers the precautionary measures prescribed by the law to be prudent and acceptable.

Sceptical researchers

Despite assurances from the two representatives of the federal administration, the researchers remain sceptical. The hurdles of the licensing process were too high for researchers, criticised amongst others Martin Küenzi, President of the Federal Specialist Commission for Biological Safety. And Ingo Potrykus, Professor Emeritus and the man who developed "Golden Rice", is annoyed that obstacles today are so high that even financially strong multinationals could hardly overcome them.

Lawyers called upon researchers to test the waters of the new law with a concrete proposal for field trials with genetically modified plants. It was only to be hoped that a second "judicial field trial" would meet with more success, at least on the legal level.