Gene editing could dramatically increase global food security and reduce dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides over the next decade, said a scientific adviser to the UK government’s environmental department.
Speaking ahead of the introduction of a bill on genetic technology in the House of Lords on Wednesday, Prof. Gideon Henderson said the legislation aims to create a simpler regulatory framework to speed up the development and commercialization of genetically modified products, allowing them to be treated differently from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are subject to strict regulation.
“It simply came to our notice then [the bill] it will allow precision-grown crops to navigate the regulatory system much faster, in about a year, compared to approximately 10 years under the current regime, ”Henderson said.
This could have many benefits, from building crops that are more resilient to the climate crisis, pests and diseases, to increasing yields, which could help fight global hunger, Henderson said. It can also be used to create more nutritious crops, such as tomatoes enriched with vitamin D.
The bill will also allow for similar changes to livestock once a regulatory system is in place to protect animal welfare, such as preventing the creation of fast-growing animals that cannot stand.
Most importantly, it distinguishes between genetic modification, which involves the introduction of genes from other species, and so-called “precision breeding” to create desired traits. The latter uses gene editing to make changes that mimic the process of selective reproduction, only more accurately and much faster than traditional breeding would allow.
However, environmental groups have dismissed any difference between the two as PR rotation. Kiera Boxing, from Friends of the Earth, said: “Gene editing is a genetic modification with a different name. It is still focusing on changing the genetic code of plants and animals to tackle the problems caused by poor soils, pesticide overuse and intensive agriculture.
Food labeling is another issue. Assuming it is passed, the bill will only apply in England, which could create conflicts with the governments of Scotland and Wales, which have maintained a post-Brexit ban on GMO production and sales.
Liz O’Neill, campaign director of the GM Freeze group, expressed concern that the bill would remove labels that allow consumers to choose what to buy and eat. Henderson said he has no plans to introduce a labeling system for genetically modified products.
Sign up for the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST
The Soil Association said it was disappointed to see the government prioritizing technological solutions to the food crisis over strategies aimed at unhealthy diets, a lack of crop diversity, overcrowding and a sharp decline in beneficial insects.
Some scientists have agreed that gene editing provides only a partial solution to the problems facing society. “Gene editing has the medium-term potential to address food production and environmental challenges,” said David Rose, a professor of sustainable agricultural systems at Cranfield University.
“However, there are legitimate concerns about the potential for editing genes to consolidate inequalities in the food supply chain, ethical concerns, especially about animal use, and the potential for facilitating greater intensification of agriculture, which could harm environment.
Other scholars would like the bill to go even further. Professor Jonathan Jones, a plant scientist at the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norwich, said: “The proposed changes to the regulation of genetically modified crops are a very positive step in the right direction and will better coordinate the UK with regulations outside the EU.
Add Comment