In the midst of the anti-GM movement, in 1999, the then leader of Greenpeace UK, Peter Melchett, was accused of theft and criminal damage after mowing a field with genetically modified corn.
In a resounding victory for the anti-GMO movement, Lord Melchett and 27 fellow activists were acquitted by a jury in what many saw as a measure of deep negative public sentiment towards GM technology.
More than 20 years later, while the government is proposing easing regulations for genetically modified products, experts say public opinion on the technology, if not completely warmed up, has at least softened.
“I think most people now have what I call Catherine Tate’s view, ‘Am I wonderful?'” Said Professor Jonathan Jones of the Sainsbury Laboratory, a plant research institute based in Norfolk.
Scientists like Jones have welcomed new legislation that could pave the way for many technologically improved products from vitamin D-fortified tomatoes to anti-cancer wheat. But experts also question whether the technology will really boost food security and the environmental benefits promised by the government.
One controversial point is the distinction between genetically modified products that will be authorized and genetically modified organisms that will still be subject to strict legislation.
Newer gene editing techniques – called “precision breeding” in the bill – include precise changes to the individual letters of the genetic code. Such changes can be achieved much less effectively through years of crossbreeding.
But the legislation will not immediately pave the way for first-generation genetic modification (GM) techniques that involve taking an entire gene from one plant and inserting it into another.
This concept is behind the erroneous term “Frankenfood”, but it has also led to some of the most impressive results, such as manna-resistant potatoes, known as piper plus, developed by the Jones team.
Potatoes are identical to maris piper, except for three genes that make it resistant to late blight, which costs UK farmers tens of millions of pounds a year and requires farmers to spray the fields more than a dozen times each year.
“I’m a little embarrassed by the way it’s presented to the public,” Jones said. “It looks like ‘Don’t worry about this nasty GM, because we can do whatever we want with this wonderful gene editing method.’ This leaves intact the false impression that something is wrong with GM. “
Jones said the bill could be a sensible “tactical compromise” that could pave the way for further easing of GM’s rules. “At least I hope the government thinks so,” he added.
The distinction also irritates some environmental activists. “Gene editing is just a subset of GM,” said Kiera Boxing of Friends of the Earth. The charity, she said, supports “fundamental opposition” to genetic modification, as it is not convinced that technology can provide environmentally friendly solutions. “If we interfere with the genetic codes in nature, we don’t know how these things react,” she added.
However, no one expects activists to tear down fields with genetically modified wheat. Greenpeace, after strongly opposing it, did not offer a look at the bill when he contacted him. “We haven’t commented, we haven’t done much work in the area lately,” a spokesman said in an email.
Another concern is that the legislation will only apply to England – the governments of Scotland and Wales, which have transferred control of such provisions, oppose the change in the rules. According to the current proposals, genetically modified products can only be developed by scientists and farmers in England, but sold in the United Kingdom, which can exacerbate political tensions and public opposition.
According to Jones, complex supply chains mean that this is also a “bit of a nightmare” from a logistical point of view. For example, most of the seed potatoes in the UK that supply potato farms are grown in Scotland because the colder climate makes them less susceptible to a pathogen called potato virus Y. Jones said his team is investigating whether gene editing can also lead to potatoes resistant to this virus. “We may have to get out of GM,” he said.
There is also the long-standing question of where public opinion actually lies.
Professor Katie Martin of the John Innes Center in Norwich said the anti-GM movement was largely motivated by concerns about globalization and that the conversation had continued. “This was the way Monsanto tried to introduce GM crops in Europe without consultation and without a proper understanding of European agricultural systems,” she said. “Since then, we have had 9/11, several major wars, and the threat of climate change has been in focus. People look at risks in different ways. “
Dr Pete Mills, assistant director of the Bioethics Council in Nufield, who is leading a consultation on public attitudes towards GMOs, said recent research – although not much – suggested that “people are not really interested from technology “.
Sign up for Down to Earth, our exclusive weekly newsletter from our leading climate crisis correspondents.
“What they are interested in is animal welfare, what the purpose is, who benefits,” he said. The intention to extend the proposed legislation to include genetically modified animals at a later date raises particular ethical concerns, Mills said, and could make the term “precision breeding” less reassuring. “The perception of conventional breeding, especially when it comes to animals, is that it has led to unsustainable results,” he said.
Scientists such as Jones and Martin are pioneers of GM technology for creating crops, which they claim can have significant benefits for the environment and nutritional properties. But there are less useful opposite examples, such as genetically modified pigs with double muscles – more meaty, but with other health problems.
“The legislation doesn’t really think about the purpose for which these technologies will be used,” Mills said. “I think that’s problematic.”
Add Comment