"File:Tasseled Out, Corn Crop, NW Iowa 7-25-13f (11033879664).jpg"by inkknife_2000 (7.5 million views +) is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Should gene-edited crops be allowed in the UK? The government has announced a consultation that could result in looser regulations on gene-edited crops.
Towards the beginning of January 2021, a consultation was launched that asked if genetically modified organisms should continue to be classed as genetically modified, given that they could have been developed using traditional breeding methods. The government is considering loosening the regulations of genetically modified crops and animals, which has sparked debate within the scientific community.
The discussion is particularly centred around gene editing which is a process that allows researchers to add to, eliminate or modify an organism’s DNA. Unlike transgenic modification, it doesn’t require the introduction of foreign DNA into the gene. The Environment Secretary, George Eustice, has said that gene editing raises ‘far fewer ethical or biological concerns’ than transgenic modification and ‘respects the rules of nature’.
Gene editing is a relatively new and quickly developing process. The original technology was only developed in 2012, and the two researchers who created it won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2020. In 2018, the European Court of Justice decided that gene-edited crops should be treated the same way as other genetically modified crops, which many scientists have disagreed with. In 2019, Boris Johnson promised to ‘liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti genetic modification rules’.
Views on regulating the use of gene editing in producing genetically modified animals or crops are divided into two sides. The first argues that gene-edited crops or livestock could have been developed through traditional breeding processes, so they shouldn’t be classed as genetically modified organisms and shouldn’t be subject to regulations. The second argues that any organism created through gene editing should be regulated as a genetically modified organism, regardless of whether or not the result could have been created through traditional breeding. Countries such as the US, Australia and Japan agree with the first statement, whereas EU agrees with the latter.
In the EU, all applications to develop genetically modified crops must be assessed, first by the EFSA, then the authorities in each independent country, and finally, authorities in Brussels. The assessment is very detailed, covering the method used, information about the inserted DNA, an environmental assessment and much more. The process is very lengthy and costly, which prohibits the development of traits that will benefit the public, such as disease resistance. Since 1992, the EU has approved 2404 field trials of genetically modified organisms, while in the USA, over the same period of time, there have been 18,381 trials for research, due to looser regulations.
However, leaving the EU allows the UK to change and hopefully shorten the process of application. While better than that of the EU, the current regulatory process for gene-edited crops to come to market is also quite long, which is preventing the development of both crops and livestock. Genetically modified crops can’t be grown for experiments or farming, without approval by DEFRA, and the movement of genetically modified food between countries must also be approved. It’s important to change these regulations to allow for more scientific progress in areas that could be beneficial to the public, such as increasing crop yields.
However, other scientists are more sceptical about the benefits that gene editing can bring and are concerned about its potential dangers. They have said that gene editing is not as precise as is often claimed and that it can cause unintentional mutations. For example, gene editing could accidentally produce new toxins, or increase the levels of pre-existing toxins, especially in plants. These researchers are worried that those developing gene-edited crops and foods are ignoring the risks.
This view states that gene editing should be treated the same way as other genetic modification procedure and should continue being regulated in the UK. Without strict safety checks, it would be far easier for potentially harmful crops to enter the marketplace. This would also make it more difficult to trace all the crops if any harmful outcomes were discovered. I would argue that gene editing is necessary to support a more sustainable food system. Gene editing is already being used in medicine and could potentially be applied to solve agricultural challenges to do with food security, climate change and sustainability.
Gene editing should be less tightly restricted, to allow for more development in areas such as disease resistance. While gene editing will help make the UK's food system more sustainable, healthy and affordable, it won’t be able to solve every issue. It’s important to focus on the whole system, instead of improving individual crops. However, it is still an important issue and should be regulated more loosely to allow for proper scientific progress.
Written by Maggie Kenyatta Walsh
Comments