Proponents of the initiative calling for a five-year moratorium on the use of genetic technology in agriculture launched their campaign last week in preparation for the popular vote, which must pass the double hurdle of a yes from the cantons and the assent of a majority of the electorate (1)(2). The alliance, comprising farmers, consumers and environmental organisations, is fighting for a prohibition on the production and distribution of genetically modified plants, plant parts, seed, and animals. Genetic technology, according to the initiators, makes food more expensive and threatens biodiversity; in addition, consumers are not interested in genetically modified products.

On the previous Monday Federal Councillor Joseph Deiss had voiced his position on the initiative: that it would be fatal to Switzerland's economy. The prohibition was an unnecessary curtailment of the entrepreneurial freedom of farmers and the consumer's freedom of choice. It would also send a scientific signal with negative consequences for branches of the economy that depended on research.

The wrong signal alienates students

ETH President-designate Ernst Hafen agrees that the biggest problem of a moratorium ‘yes’ vote would be the negative signal it would send to science. At the Gen Suisse media conference Hafen pointed out that as a country poor in raw materials, Switzerland depended on first-class research. Research, however, reacted sensitively to its environment. Switzerland was carrying out top work in plant biotechnology now, but if future restrictive regulations meant that certain scientists could no longer be brought to Zurich this would have serious consequences, because not many scientists already in Switzerland were working in the area. Even now, as Hafen explained at question time, there were no students at ETH Zurich who specialised in plant biotechnology, in contrast to the large number from abroad wishing to come to Zurich to do a Ph.D in the field.

The poisoned social climate had also led to a situation where fewer students were interested in studying plant biotechnology in Berne, said Klaus Ammann, director of the city's botanical gardens. He could understand the falling level of interest, because the primary motivation for his own research projects had been their potential application.

Warns about sending the wrong signals if the "Genetic-technology-free Initiative" passes: Ernst Hafen, ETH President-designate large

This scientist sees possible deployment for genetic technology in combating potato blight. Genes providing natural resistance had been identified, but if classical selection methods were used these could only be transferred along with thousands of other – sometimes undesirable – genes. It would be like playing blind man's buff - whereas if genetic technology were used it would be possible to elegantly transfer just the selected genes.

In Ammann's opinion putting a brake on research activities was unethical, because as a developed country Switzerland had a responsibility to the third world and had to make new possibilities available to it. Given this, it was regrettable that organisations such as Swissaid diffused false information. It was not true, for example, that genetic technology only enriched agri-multinationals. Around 85 percent of genetically modified plants for cultivation in developing countries came from public institutions.

True motives revealed at ETH field trials

In truth, the Gen Suisse representatives question the honesty of the initiators. The third speaker at the media conference, farmer and CVP Member of Parliament Josef Leu, pointed out that the people behind the new initiative were the same as those behind the genetic protection initiative in 1998, with its numerous prohibitions. He called the moratorium a "trick-package" and likened it to a Trojan horse concealing genetic technology opponents. The real intentions of the latter had become clear in connection with the ETH field trial of genetically modified wheat in Lindau. Klaus Ammann described the modus operandi of the opponents using an example from Germany. Renate Kühnast, former German Green Party minister, basing her decision on a Russian publication, demanded a distance of 1,000 metres between fields containing and not containing genetically modified wheat even though her scientific advisers had proposed 10-50 metres. When the Russian paper in question (written in 1942) was found and translated it transpired that what the scientists had actually proposed in it was a reduction in the distance between the two fields – from 1,000 to 10–50 metres.