Urs Niggli on agroecology: “Organic cannot feed the world”

taz: Mr. Niggli, you were considered by many to be the “bio pope”. But your new book is called “What Comes After Organic?” Do you no longer believe that organic farming alone can feed the world?

Urs Niggli: No, organic cannot feed the world. We have had organic farming for 100 years, and it still only accounts for 2 to 3 percent of agricultural land worldwide. Growth has been either zero or very low in recent years. Organic farming has an important role model function because it is more environmentally friendly than conventional farming in key respects. But neither development specialists nor international agricultural researchers attach great importance to it if we want to achieve the sustainability goals.

73, headed the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL) from 1990 to 2020. Since then he has led the Institute for Agroecology.

Niggli: Organic food is on average 20 to 50 percent more expensive. Organic farming also needs relatively high agricultural subsidies so that farmers get involved. Yields across all crops are on average 25 to 30 percent lower, partly because of the lack of chemical-synthetic pesticides and a slight nutrient deficit.

taz: What percentage of organic content do you think is acceptable globally?

Niggli: You could go up to 10 or 20 percent without affecting food security. If we halve food waste and reduce populations, especially of grain-eating animals such as pigs or chickens, we could compensate for the loss of yield from organic farming and further increase the organic share. But there is no global trend away from meat.

taz: Could the current trend towards higher meat consumption be reversed through education?

Niggli: Germany is one of the few countries where meat consumption per capita has declined, thanks in part to campaigns. But it is still relatively high. And in Austria, where there are a lot of organic farms, it is even higher at 160 grams per person per day.

taz: The state could make conventional agriculture pay a pesticide tax for the environmental damage it causes, for example to groundwater. Or increase subsidies for organic. Couldn't the price disadvantage of organic farming be easily eliminated in this way?

Niggli: Probably not enough. Organic apple and wine farmers who cannot do without environmentally harmful copper preparations against fungal diseases would also have to pay a pesticide tax. Furthermore, it is not realistic for the European Union to increase organic subsidies sufficiently given its financial situation. And in many countries around the world there are no payments for organic farming at all.

Niggli: Instead of pure organic, I advocate agroecology, a mixture of organic and the best sustainable methods of conventional agricultural science.

taz: But it is not clearly defined how much pesticides, mineral fertilizers and genetic engineering are allowed. Under this label, couldn't the agricultural industry simply continue as environmentally harmful as before?

Niggli: There is a great danger that agroecology will become a green fig leaf. For this reason, minimum requirements must be defined. These must be open to new technologies that serve the goals of agroecology, i.e. biodiversity, soil fertility, environmental protection and animal welfare.

taz: The EU has laws for the organic industry. Should it also issue a regulation for agroecology?

Niggli: Yes. The rules should correspond to those of organic farming in many areas: for example, minimum requirements for crop rotation, i.e. how often the plant species in a field must be changed so that fewer weeds and pests reduce the harvest. Or that nutrients from animal husbandry can be returned to crop production as fertilizer so that soil fertility is maintained and the environment is polluted as little as possible. There are also minimum requirements for biodiversity in the landscape, such as requirements for flowering areas, hedges and other refuges for insects and birds.

taz: And how should the agroecology rules differ from the organic regulations?

Niggli: For example in plant breeding. It is an extremely important preventative element, for example against disease infestation. Unlike organic farming, agroecology should not exclude breeding technologies such as genome editing.

taz: So genetic engineering methods like Crispr/Cas, with which the genetic material of cells can be specifically changed.

Niggli: Exactly. Many scientific representatives of agroecology want this opening up in plant breeding and animal breeding. Others are against any genome editing and similar breeding methods. There is now so much literature about the risks and potential. I hardly know anyone who still has horror scenarios regarding genome editing - for example, the fear that genetically modified plants would cross out into wild species in an uncontrolled manner. Or that they are harmful to health.

taz: How did you come to distance yourself from pure organic products?

Niggli: What was important was my participation in scientific committees that discussed the future of agricultural research. That's when I realized that 90 percent of agricultural researchers don't understand why people want to fundamentally ban certain developments. Technological progress has also led me to mentally break away from the narrow world of bioresearch with its blinders. For example, there are new developments such as RNA interference. This makes it possible to create crop protection products that block protein synthesis in agricultural pests by silencing certain genes...

taz: ... means that the pest can no longer produce certain vital proteins and dies.

Niggli: Theoretically, you could eliminate harmful insects without affecting other organisms. I had further key experiences with Caixia Gao in Beijing, a famous expert in genome editing. In her laboratory, I saw numerous crops that could be used to solve important problems. At the same time, she was a big fan of organic farming.

taz: Genetic engineering has long been established in the USA. But even there, there are no super plants on the market that could, for example, survive a drought. Are the expectations of technology too high?

Niggli: Especially when it comes to adapting to climate change, you have to be careful not to exaggerate your expectations. Breeding is just one of several measures in a cultivation system. You shouldn't overestimate them, but it would be unwise not to use them. Especially because in combination with artificial intelligence it will be much more solution-oriented in the future.

taz: Genetic engineering plants are usually patented. Breeders are only allowed to develop them further with the permission of the copyright holder. That could hinder progress.

Niggli: Yes, but there are also interim solutions that, for example, breeders can continue to work with patented plants and that the patent fees only arise when the new variety comes onto the market. Intensive work is being done on these solutions. The European legislator is also called upon to do this.

taz: Why should a small, medium-sized breeder trust that a large patent holder will later grant them a license under affordable conditions?

Niggli: There is a certain solidarity between large and small breeders. But of course: There is still a need for action when it comes to patent law.

taz: You said in a taz interview in 2016 that the Crispr/Cas method could have advantages for organic farming. Parts of the industry then accused them of betrayal. You write that collaborations broke down and invitations were not received and that you felt like a “leper within the organic movement”. Have you been treated unfairly?

Niggli: No. That's part of the risk when you think ahead. If science didn't always think ahead, we wouldn't have any progress.

Niggli: I was quite disappointed that no dialogue emerged from it. It was said again and again that yes, we should actually discuss this question, but that it was a breach of trust on my part to go public with it. A common saying was that we would have to discuss this internally first. But there was no committee, no platform and no willingness to discuss certain sensitive matters. That's why this closed society of organic farming was angry with me. For me it was difficult on a human level because all my professional and friendship relationships were part of this bubble.

Niggli: No. Today, when someone searches for “organic and genetic engineering” on the Internet, my name is the first thing that comes up. That's why I still receive a lot of requests for lectures, interviews and so on. I'm now 73 and the fact that I'm still allowed to have a say has to do with this breaking of taboos in the taz.