While Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in agriculture are not a new subject, recent events have given rise to increased interest in this complex topic. The government of the United Kingdom has held an online public consultation regarding a new initiative to deregulate gene editing (GE) which so far has been subject to the same regulations as GMO. This issue was also addressed at a recent UK Farmer’s Assembly on new GM. The move by the UK government comes shortly after Brexit and can be viewed as an attempt to do away with EU-inherited GMO legislation and to embrace the USA’s stance on the matter. This article provides insights drawn from this debate that may help to understand if this is the right path to take.
GMO and GE – any difference?
Genetic technology or biotechnology in agriculture ‘is used to introduce genes into various plants that are sources of foods and food components.’ To create genetically modify plants, scientists introduce a preferred gene (previously removed from another organism) into the targeted organism. This gene may, for instance, be the base for an insecticidal toxin that allows the plant to defend itself against a harmful insect. As regards gene editing, while no new foreign genes are introduced into the organism’s DNA, there must be a simple cut made to the DNA site that allows the plant’s features to be improved.
Legal framework
The USA and the EU have put in place clear-cut regulations concerning GMOs. Yet, over the years, both have amended their legislation, treating gene editing in different ways. The USA, whose regulations are more or less in favor of GMOs, does not regard gene editing as GMO. On the other hand, the EU, which is somewhat restrictive when it comes to genetically modified products, deems gene editing to be GMO and has announced that gene-edited products would be subject to the same regulations as GMOs.
With the 2020 Brexit, the UK is considering shifting away from the EU-inherited regulations on GMOs. In a recently released statement, the UK government argued that GMOs were “one of the options for making agriculture more efficient and sustainable, and which could therefore help to address future challenges on food production”. Moreover, the government “broadly supports the view that GM and other advanced breeding techniques can be used safely and deliver both economic and environmental benefits.”
What does science say?
Some researchers see potential in genetic technologies, arguing that “no GM crop or food has been found to have a level of risk that is significantly different than that of conventional crop or food products”. Others warn of serious risks. According to Dr. Michael Antoniou, Head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group, GE, as well as GMO, represent a range of limitations and risks that might have a devastating impact on human health and the environment. With this in mind, allowing these products to be placed on the market unlabeled (which is also part of regulatory control) is strongly inadvisable, Antoniou noted.
Furthermore, there is evidence showing the negative impacts of these technologies on food safety, rural livelihoods, and biodiversity worldwide. For instance, one of the effects is genetic homogeneity which, in reality, means no variation among plants and consequently ‘higher vulnerability of agricultural systems’ to different environmental stresses. Other risks include the development of herbicide resistance in weeds, ‘transfer of transgenes from crops to other plants, which then could become weeds’, and a decrease in the number of insects who feed on pests. As a matter of fact, these insects, so-called natural enemy killers, are indispensable not only for ecosystem functioning in general but also for farmers who have mixed crop systems and rely on these insects that basically ‘replace’ insecticides. Therefore, Dr. Antoniou affirmed that:
“It is vital that Gene Editing be strictly regulated minimally under current GMO regulations because by doing so it means that it will be properly risk assessed for environmental impact, for health impact for consumer whether that be a human or a farm animal.”
Farmers’ view
Although some farmers argue that, if properly regulated, biotechnology can offer benefits such as higher yields and production of crop varieties resistant to certain diseases, the experience of farmers in the UK and worldwide says differently. In fact, experts say that biotechnology is trying to solve problems some of which it created in the first place. This is the case, for instance, of the herbicide resistance that has developed in weed populations. Such a view was echoed by Jyoti Fernandes, Director of the Land Workers’ Alliance, a member of the global small and family farms’ movement, Via Campesina. The latter stands against GMO and GE as they create dependence on genetically engineered seeds depriving producers of the right to reproduce, share or store seeds.
“These technologies respond to the need of biotechnology companies to intensify farmers’ dependence on seeds protected by so-called intellectual property rights that conflict directly with the age-old rights of farmers to reproduce, share, or store seeds.”
While putting at risk the future of farming, such conflict also endangers the achievements of farmers who throughout millennia have contributed to breeding[1] locally adaptable varieties of crops. In fact, today we mainly consume food that is derived from some 1.9 million plant varieties and 5,000 domesticated crop species, the majority of which have been grown without agrochemicals and laboratory genetic technology. Yet, as the UN Food and Agriculture Organization noted, since the 1900s, some 75% of plant genetic diversity has been lost as farmers worldwide have left their multiple local varieties and landraces for genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties.
Taking all the above into consideration, GE deregulation opens the door to agriculture for gene-edited crops. The opinion of farmers opposing the move can be summarized by the statement of UK farmer, George Young:
“We have to change, change not stay doing the same old thing. We have to relearn how we are going to live on our planet, how to nurture and nourish it as well as how to nurture and nourish ourselves. Gene editing is persistence, not change, and should form no part of the farming system moving forward.”
While controversial, the question of genetic technologies clearly remains of high public concern as to the risks it poses to people and the environment. Such a conclusion finds its reflection in scientific studies, experts’ opinions as well as those who can be directly affected by it – the farmers.
[1] Gliessman, S. (1998). Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture (3rd ed.). Chapter 1: Case for Fundamental Change in Agriculture (3-21). Boca Raton: CRC Press
