From barley designed to make methane-free cow burps to wheat with less carcinogenic acrylamide when toasted, researchers have been busily editing plant genetics behind-the-scenes for years.
Only in August, a small plot of gene-edited wheat was harvested for the first time in Norfolk. It’s one of three crop varieties currently being trialled as part of the £2.2m Defra-funded PROBITY project, with two others currently cultivated in glasshouses at Herefordshire’s Rothamsted Research.
But transferring from these small-scale scientific trials to, well, supermarket scale production has always remained out of reach. “The development of these projects has very much been confined to the lab,” points out Tom Allen-Stevens, founder at the British On-Farm Innovation Network (BOFIN), which leads the PROBITY project. Efforts to scale up volumes from, say, 1kg to 100 tons has been painstakingly slow, confined to “tightly regulated” research plots no bigger than a football pitch. To make faster progress, research teams say they need access to commercial farms.
Soon they might get their wish.
In September, the new Minister of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Daniel Zeichner took to the stage at the World Agri-Tech Innovation Summit in London to confirm Labour’s plans to push through the next phase of regulation required to set gene-edited crops on a path toward commercialisation.
Last year, as one of their last acts in power, the Conservatives had pushed through The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act. This primary legislation, loosely speaking, groups gene-edited crops and livestock in with other precision-bred organisms (PBOs) exempting them from many of the strict legal barriers that face other novel technologies, such as genetic modification. But it lacked much of the detail that was required on the processes, protections and criteria that would apply in each scenario. With the secondary legislation promised ‘shortly’, Labour has said those gaps will be filled in and gene editing will finally be given the go-ahead.
Many have welcomed the news. “The NFU is delighted that the government has announced plans to put in place the regulations needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act,” says NFU vice president Rachel Hallos. “The potential benefits of biotechnology in farming and food are significant but companies do need the legal certainty of fit for purpose legislation to invest in breeding solutions for British farming, environment and society.”
Others have reacted with far more trepidation about what the legislative green light will mean for UK food and farming.
Non-profit campaign group GM Freeze is one of those pushing back against government plans to ease gene-edited crops onto commercial farms. The group has called for a “moratorium on all forms of genetic modification,” explains its executive director, Leonie Nimmo. It vehemently resists the ‘misleading’ distinction drawn by legislation between gene-editing – in which genes are removed – and genetic modification, or GMOs, in which foreign genes are added. Not only is this a gross oversimplification, it is also a false one. Whether edited, removed or added to – genetic material is being modified – and GM Freeze therefore argue, that all forms of GM pose equivalent risks.
If the Labour government continues with the regulatory framework drafted under the Conservatives, “unlabelled and untraceable genetically engineered plants and animals will be in our food and farming system, and we won’t be able to identify them either as consumers or as producers” says Nimmo. “That has several knock-on effects, not least an inability to track and trace any negative impacts.” Open-air trials could lead to contamination of neighbouring land, she argues, while a lack of obligation to label gene-edited crops will strip away consumer and farmer choice.
Previous plans had also suggested that responsibility for any pre-approval safety testing would rest with industry rather than an independent body. “There were no plans for DEFRA to conduct any environmental impact assessments either,” adds Nimmo. “So, there’s a combination of a lack of safety and environmental checks, and no intentions to monitor.”
This lack of segregation has worried the organic sector too. “Although the law identifies ‘precision bred organisms’ differently to other GMOs that fall under more rigorous GMO legislation, they are still genetically modified organisms and so cannot be used in organic production,” explains Sarah Hathway, head of technical at The Soil Association. “This law does not, on its own, have sufficient requirements in place to enable these GMOs to be identified and excluded from organic production.”
And though secondary legislation for gene-edited livestock isn’t part of Labour’s current commitment, animal welfare campaigners have also added their voice to the debate. “The previous government made it clear that they hoped that gene editing would be able to enhance productivity,” says Peter Stevenson, chief policy advisor at Compassion in World Farming. “They kept saying, look, this is just a more efficient form of traditional selective breeding, as if somehow that made it all right. But if you look at what selective breeding of farm animals has done in the last 60, 70 years, it’s horrifying.
“The second thing that the industry claims is that we can make animals resistant to disease through gene editing. And of course, that sounds very attractive. But a lot of these diseases are stemming from the way in which the animals are farmed, with crowded, stressful conditions contributing to the spread of pathogens. The danger is that once they’ve been made resistant to disease, it could lead to poultry and other farm animals being kept in even worse conditions than they are now.”
Each of these arguments has been roundly rejected by advocates.
Supporters insist that the safety risk for gene-edited plants is no greater – if not less – than that which exists in traditional PBOs, with the genetic changes achieved via the technology perfectly possible via traditional methods, albeit at a far slower pace. Moreover, rather than risk worsening animal welfare, they’ve argued that gene-editing ‘offers enormous potential to accelerate the delivery of health and welfare, environmental and productivity benefits in farmed animals.’
“We want to see companies developing products that address the specific challenges and opportunities in the UK, whether it’s improving resource efficiency, resilience to climate change or tastier, more nutritious foods,” says Hallos. “Precision breeding is not a silver bullet, but genetic improvement is a vital tool among many that can help achieve our net-zero goals by enhancing crop and livestock productivity while supporting health, biodiversity and sustainable farming.”
Divisive as the debate remains, there is largely an acceptance that it isn’t a case of if gene-edited crops will make their way into the UK supply chain, but when. Campaigners are therefore focusing their attentions on shaping the new iteration of secondary legislation set to be drafted by Labour, rather than attempting to have it thrown out altogether. This includes calls for clear labelling, traceability and independent checks, as well as better protections for animal welfare and biodiversity.
“I’m very wary of gene editing but I’m not saying it should never be used,” says Stevenson. “What we’ve said is that for any kind of gene editing to be acceptable there would have to be three tests: a detailed study that would show there is no likelihood of there being health and welfare problems for the animals involved; no alternative, less invasive way of achieving the same objective; and third, that it wouldn’t entrench industrial production. If it could pass those three tests, it could be useful.”
“We are hopeful that the government will take the right steps to ensure that there is a robust risk assessment and review of all PBOs before their release in the environment or their use as food can be approved,” adds Hathway. “The risk, if the government falls short of its obligations to public safety and choice, will be a significant compromise on consumer trust and confidence and may significantly harm the ability of the UK to trade with the rest of the world where there are different rules.”
For Allen-Stevens, meanwhile, after years of political back and forth, the biggest ask is clarity on what comes next. “We’re keen for the process to start,” he says. “It was supposed to be in place for March this year. That was the original timetable They knocked it back and then the general election happened and so they really do need to move it forward now. None of our farmers are going to want to put one of these crops in the ground unless they know that they can sell it at the end.”
The reality is, where farmers fall on this ongoing debate will ultimately determine whether or not gene-edited crops make a material change to UK diets. “There are some farmers who have got serious concerns about this all the way through to some who are very open and receptive to it,” he adds. “The important thing is that we make this a farmer-led discussion. It’s going to be up to the farmers to actually grow them. They’re the ones who will decide.”
Just as long as they label it, so I can avoid it.
This technology has all the hallmarks of what got us into this mess in the first place. Behind the seductive promises of making farmers more efficient and profitable, helping us address biodiversity loss and climate change and so on, lies the very real agenda of even greater corporate control of the food system. But it doesn’t even stop there. The linear thinking that goes behind the idea that we are in any way smart enough to interfere in complex and inter-connected biological systems, has left a trail of mess and misery.
It doesn’t have to be this way. A twenty-five year journey to a more agroecological system of farming has demonstrated to us, at least, that we can produce adequate amounts of safe affordable food without the need for the damaging technologies which are costing us the earth.
I agree with the comments stated above. We hear a lot about ‘transparency’ but this whole industry seems shrouded to prevent people knowing what’s going on.
This is a very complex issue and it’s important to get the facts right. Wicked Leeks seems to have taken the claims of the pro-biotech lobbyists at face value – something that is particularly disappointing in a magazine that comes from an organisation that promotes organic farming (& fairness). The PROBITY seed multiplication trials are not taking place under the auspices of the Genetic Technology Act but under an earlier piece of Tory deregulation called the Deliberate Releases Amendment which allowed developers to plant experimental gene edited crops wherever they want, and removes any requirement for safety or environmental assessment. Portraying Steven’s and others like him as victims is misleading but, worse, acquiesces to efforts to pressure the new government into signing into law inadequate secondary legislation that will release gene edited foods into the marketplace without adequate evaluations and with no labelling to alert consumers to what they are. Trials of gene edited crops take a long time – not because of regulatory restrictions or ‘anti-GM groups’ but because the science is incomplete and uncertain and very often fails to produce the desired results. I would also argue that it is not farmers who will ‘ultimately’ have the final say but the consumers they sell to. These are the same consumers that buy Riverford Organic Farmers produce (and presumably buy in to its story and philosophy) and the same 8 in 10 consumers in the UK who, surveys consistently show, think that gene edited foods should be thoroughly tested and labelled and traceable. The he-said-she-said format of this article is a false ‘neutrality’ that utterly fails to understand the landscape. You must do better. Pat Thomas, Director, Beyond GM
This article contains factual inaccuracies. In particular, the sentence: “the distinction drawn by legislation between gene-editing – in which genes are removed – and genetic modification, or GMOs, in which foreign genes are added” is incorrect on two important counts:
1. The UK legislation clearly defines so-called ‘precision bred’ gene-edited organisms as a subset of genetically modified organisms, which, technically and legally (in the UK, the USA, and the EU), they are. Gene editing is not distinct from genetic modification/genetic engineering, as the article wrongly implies – it *is* a type of genetic modification/genetic engineering. While some in the UK government don’t understand this or don’t want to admit it, it’s important that sites like Wicked Leeks do not perpetuate the deception or confusion.
‘Precision bred’ as it currently stands is a self-declaration made by the GMO developer that will exempt the GMO from risk assessment, traceability and labelling. The ‘precision bred’ designation assumes that the GMO could have been produced with traditional processes, like breeding, and is therefore as safe as a traditionally bred organism. However, no proof of this ‘natural-like’ status has to be provided as the legislation currently stands. Over 100 international scientists have condemned (https://gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20092) the ‘precision bred’ designation as scientifically baseless and dangerous for health and environment.
In reality gene editing has no similarities with traditional processes such as breeding. It is an artificial gene manipulation technique involving deliberate human intervention in the genome, that results in a GMO, as is legally confirmed in the UK, the USA, and the EU. Because the processes are different, they carry different risks. By analogy, electrical wiring in a house carries different risks from lightning (a natural process). So even though the product is the same (electricity), we rightly regulate how electrical wiring is installed.
2. Contrary to the statement in the article, gene editing is not necessarily a matter of ‘removing genes’. It can be, and is, used to delete/disrupt, modify, or add genes. These different applications of gene editing techniques are often respectively called SDN1, SDN2, and SDN3. In addition, foreign DNA is often added to gene-edited organisms inadvertently, as a result of the gene editing process, and developers are not applying the right tests to spot the presence of this rogue foreign DNA.
However, the risks or safety of any individual gene-edited organism are not restricted to, or necessarily dependent on, the addition of foreign DNA (https://gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20138).
The risks that gene-edited organisms pose to health and the environment are potentially equivalent to, or even greater than, those posed by older-style GMOs. There is nothing inherently ‘safe’ about gene editing. Numerous scientific papers warn about the risks posed by these types of GMOs and many scientists are calling for detailed risk assessment, traceability, and labelling for each gene-edited GMO prior to marketing. A small selection of relevant peer-reviewed papers is here (https://gmwatch.org/en/news/archive/2019/19223).