Enlarge image
Sarah Wiener, MEP and top chef
Photo: Marijan Murat/dpa
SPIEGEL:
Five years ago, when you entered the EU Parliament, you told SPIEGEL that you might experience a lot of disappointments. Now you are no longer running in the June election. Were the disappointments too great?
Wiener:
There were big disappointments, that's inevitable. But these have nothing to do with my resignation as a politician. Overall, it was a stressful but important time in my life. I delved into the depths of political decisions and learned an enormous amount.
SPIEGEL:
You no longer formed the Austrian Greens as a non-party. Do you feel like you didn't live up to expectations?
Wiener:
It wasn't quite like that. I signaled to the Austrian Greens that I could imagine running again. Then there was no decision for a long time and I wanted planning security. That was fine with me. There were certainly expectations from some: She is famous, she will first and foremost loudly represent the green values in the press. A kind of political activist as a public figure. But I've basically been that way before, so this role didn't appeal to me. I wanted to do European policy no matter what, that meant negotiating legal texts and understanding how European policy works. That's what I was elected for.
SPIEGEL:
You've moved somewhat into the background in the media.
Wiener:
That was an early realization that my media attention as a television chef could not simply be transferred to my political issues. Media asked me for home stories and wanted to hear about dirty scandals in Brussels. But I wanted to talk about my content. There was never so little interest in me as at the time when I had the most something to say.
SPIEGEL:
How long did it take for you to familiarize yourself with parliamentary business?
Wiener:
It took at least two years to get through the parliamentary process. Sometimes I feel desperate because I still don't understand how things work. I thought: Okay, you arrived as a career changer, I didn't know anyone, I didn't belong to any party. Later I talked to others who had similar experiences - even though they belonged to a party and had previously been members of the state parliament. The pandemic period has certainly made it even more difficult.
SPIEGEL:
Did you underestimate what to expect?
Wiener:
Yes and no. Right from the start I had great respect for the task, but certainly also a naive idea of politics. I thought I would meet a lot of committed specialist politicians who fight for their cause with passion and intellect and who would show me, newbie, where the Bartel gets the most. As a TV chef, a school dropout and a career changer, the others wouldn't take me seriously at first. So I always wanted to prepare extremely well and learn a lot. Today I have to say: Yes, there are really many, very committed specialist politicians, and then there are the others. Sometimes I asked myself who nominated and elected these politicians. In my first speeches in Parliament I spoke about principles, our moral obligations. Some people looked at me like I had eaten too many mushrooms.
SPIEGEL:
What was your greatest political success?
Wiener:
My greatest success was probably also my greatest defeat. As a negotiator, I was able to organize a stable majority in the Environment Committee with Greens, Conservatives, Liberals, Social Democrats and Leftists for the pesticide reduction law. This was considered very unlikely because from the first minute there was enormous headwind from lobbyists and a front of right-wing to right-wing radical politicians. We finally found an ecologically and economically robust solution. In the plenary session itself, the plan was riddled with amendments and watered down so much that I recommended that my group not agree to my amputated text. That was bitter.
SPIEGEL:
Were you unable to prevent this turnaround?
Wiener:
I tried with all my might. I thought the others would have to be convinced with objective arguments. Compromises must be possible. I talked to everyone – even right-wing extremists – and tried to understand the other side. My conservative counterpart said: I can simply be against it, I don't have to negotiate and I don't have to offer a compromise. These politicians are refusing to fulfill their democratic role as representatives.
SPIEGEL:
The other side has put forward arguments such as the risk to food security.
Wiener:
For five years I had to hear that our food security would be threatened by a reduction in pesticides. But studies show the opposite: In the long term, we endanger our food security with pesticides through depleted, destroyed soil life, contaminated water and the loss of pollinators. I also asked the other side to send me their technical insights and studies on their point of view. That would be a starting point for discussions.
SPIEGEL:
What do you mean?
Wiener:
There was a public letter from 7,000 scientists who said: We need a reduction. Right-wing politicians replied: Yes, I can also organize a letter like that in which scientists call for even more pesticides. You know what, I then said: Bring me 30, no, bring me 20 scientists! Just bring me more than the three usual suspects that aren't taken seriously in science. Nothing ever came. Zero.
SPIEGEL:
Finally, the Commission completely withdrew the proposal for pesticide reduction.
Wiener:
It became apparent that there was no majority in the EU Council of Ministers for a substantial reduction in pesticides.
SPIEGEL:
You were among the few in the EU Green group who supported Ursula von der Leyen as Commission President in 2019 and you also know her personally. Are you disappointed with the EU elite's approach to this matter?
Wiener:
The pesticide reduction failed because of Parliament and the Council, not because of the Commission. In my opinion, it was the strategically right way to withdraw the proposal if you wanted to implement it strongly in terms of content. Provided, of course, that the Commission has not fundamentally given up on its desire to reduce environmental toxins. Von der Leyen had to vent during the farmers' protests, and at the same time she must be re-elected by the EPP MPs in parliament. A watered-down sham solution would have achieved nothing in terms of content.
SPIEGEL:
Is it better to decide nothing than to decide something that at least goes in the right direction?
Wiener:
It could possibly have fallen short of the requirements of the previous regulation. Voting for an inefficient legal text that achieves nothing is symbolic politics.
SPIEGEL:
Do you think there could still be a solution?
Wiener:
Von der Leyen has now initiated a dialogue between agriculture in which solutions are now being sought. This includes not only the pesticide and agricultural industries, but also representatives of family businesses, small farmers, environmental institutes and organizations. A compromise negotiated there should also convince the conservatives. I do not give up hope that parts of agriculture can be freed from the global pesticide industry. I trust Von der Leyen to take the right path. This may sound a bit strange, but I know that she represents Christian politics that also includes health, animal and environmental issues.
SPIEGEL:
Recently, hundreds of tractors were on the road again in the EU quarter. Do you understand the protest?
Wiener:
Of course. EU agricultural policy is a disaster. But it is hypocritical when the parties that have been responsible for this policy for decades now say that we have to listen to the farmers. Which farmers are we talking about? From regional circular structures or from conglomerates that produce for export? The conservative EPP politicians are creating a mood: The Greens are ideological ayatollahs who want to ruin you. Do you know what particularly annoys me about it?
SPIEGEL:
No, what?
Wiener:
There are two political parties that are committed to agriculture. These are the EPP and the Greens. When you're in the same field in a democracy, I expect you to sit down and have a battle of arguments. Instead, it turns into a battle with hooligans in which abbreviations and platitudes are thrown around each other's ears.
SPIEGEL:
The protesting farmers are also concerned about economic pressure. You yourself had a share in a farm in Brandenburg. Do you understand the needs?
Wiener:
Of course. The desperation is based on many reasons that have to do with our economy. Specialized companies are vulnerable to crises. Subsidies are largely awarded based on area, which usually benefits larger companies. Then we have a monopolized trade that dictates prices. A lot of things happened this way historically, some were wrong policies. We need a system change – in the interests of the population and also of farmers. For this to happen, some things in politics would have to speed up.
SPIEGEL:
Do you have an example?
Wiener:
My impression is that the discussions often lag behind science. Let me give you an example: The science of the microbiome has been the hot shit in research for many years. Very briefly: It's about feeding these microorganisms as varied as possible, in the soil but also in ourselves. This strengthens our immune system. The more biodiversity, the more resilience. Pesticides have an effect on it. This science has been around for more than twenty years, but it has not yet really made it into the political space in the EU Parliament.
SPIEGEL:
That brings us to the topic of your life. Have you still cooked for the MPs in Parliament?
Wiener:
I'm already in the process of closing down my office, but I've done it to the end. In order to understand each other in politics, exchange across party lines is necessary. Eating together, the personal approach is a good framework for this.
SPIEGEL:
Do you have any further suggestions for improvement for the EU Parliament?
Wiener:
I think it would be a good measure if every new MEP was given a sponsor from another group. Simply to find your way around parliament more quickly and to establish non-partisan relationships. The personal side is neglected in politics. This can be the deciding factor in negotiating a compromise.
SPIEGEL:
Also with right-wing extremists?
Wiener:
You shouldn't give up on the electorate, but there's just no point in talking to some politicians. Five years ago, as a naive cook, I thought: OK, maybe these ultra-right people are just uninformed, I'll sit down with them in a comradely manner. They also have their points, we can approach each other. Clear up the misunderstandings, strengthen democracy and the larger whole together. Let's put it politely: I didn't succeed.
SPIEGEL:
There were even death threats against you - presumably from right-wing extremists.
Wiener:
Oh yes, there was strong hostility. Not only right-wing extremists, but also farmers' officials and right-wing politicians were happy to freely distribute gasoline and lighters. Nevertheless, or perhaps because of this, I now have more respect for being a politician than before.
SPIEGEL:
The ugliest conflicts in politics are often fought within the party. What was your experience in the Green Party?
Wiener:
It may surprise you, but I had the best experiences in the group. There was great appreciation for my work. Of course, I initially asked myself at the group meetings why 30 people now have to come forward for this or that topic and discuss a half-sentence for hours. Everything has been said. Later I understood how important this exchange is. Listening to everyone has its own beauty and justification - democracy is exhausting.
SPIEGEL:
What's next for you?
Wiener:
My focus is initially on my non-profit Sarah Wiener Foundation. With Barmer health insurance as a partner, we are the most successful German nutrition initiative. We train educators and teach children from the age of three to cook at a low threshold in public schools and kindergartens. The social gap is becoming ever wider here and influences equal educational opportunities right from the start. Eating is also a bonding act. Everything revolves around good nutrition. And perhaps, yes, we are looking at that right now, we will also become more political in the future. We are what we eat. Can there be anything more important? I will definitely remain active in terms of food policy.