Peers in the House of Lords have called on the government to revisit regulation on gene-editing (GE). Tom Allen-Stevens reports.
A motion debated on Thursday (30 Jan) recognised recent developments in this field and its status in scientific research, and could pave the way to government diverging from EU law which treats gene-edited crops as GMOs.
While much of the debate concerned interventions in the field of medicine, Viscount Matt Ridley said it was “vital” the government signals its encouragement of genome editing in agriculture. “There is no clearer case of a technology in which we could and should take the lead but in which we are and will be held back if we do not break free from the EU approach,” he said.
He took the example of the blight-resistant potatoes, currently being developed by The Sainsbury Laboratory in Norwich. TSL has been developing GM lines which have now been commercialised in the US by Idaho-based plant sciences company JR Simplot.
Here in the UK, the first year of field trials have just been undertaken by TSL and NIAB of blight-resistant Maris Piper potatoes. The altered lines of the UK’s top-selling variety also have genes switched off to reduce bruising damage and accumulation of sugars during cold storage. Traditionally, potato crops destined for processing have been treated during storage with chlorpropham (CIPC) that recently lost its approval for use in the UK.
Matt Ridley believes GE technology has enormous potential to do good.
Although these are GM lines, rather than genome-edited, Matt pointed out that conventional varieties are sprayed up to 15 times with fungicides to keep the crop free of blight. “The technology has enormous potential to do good and less possibility of doing harm than the existing technologies it would replace,” he pointed out.
It’s not an area that’s likely to be supported by large biotech companies, he added, because the private sector “effectively does not exist in this space” in the UK. “Until politicians signal a sea change, the private sector will shun the UK’s wonderful labs and the breakthroughs will be applied overseas.”
Despite the UK being a global leader in plant and animal biology, he said scientists were currently “playing catch-up” in the field of genome-editing. “We are well placed to get back in the lead, if only we had the right encouragement.”
He called the July 2018 ruling by the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU), which classed GE crops as GMOs, a “disaster”. Other global authorities, such as those in the US, have legislated the technology on the trait expressed, rather than by the method used. Here in the EU, however, the precise GE techniques such as CRISPR are regulated to a far higher degree than the “random scrambling of DNA” induced through gamma-ray radiation, he pointed out. He urged the government to switch to regulating by trait, rather than by method.
Matt spelled out the many potential near-market and horizon benefits Britain would have if the government were to choose to “do gene-editing”. “If we don’t, then China, America, Japan and Argentina will still push ahead with this technology and follow their own priorities, leaving us as supplicants to get the technology second hand,” he concluded.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle countered some of Matt’s arguments, pointing out that the EU does not have a ban on GMOs and that around 70 authorised GM food and animal feed products come into the EU. “For the EU and for us, a safety assessment needs to be updated regarding the latest understanding of these imports, particularly on stacked events, where we might see interaction between the genetic modifications,” she warned.
Research into GM and GE is allowed in the EU, provided there’s no risk of contamination in the outside environment. With the UK sharing a land border with the EU, she noted that any decisions made here on GE would affect the EU.
Future trade deals
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride noted the US has a more relaxed approach to GM food and that UK scientists have warned accepting products such as hormone-treated beef would be an “unnecessary and unacceptable risk” just to secure a future trade deal. “Can the Minister outline the Government’s thinking on GM food in relation to any future trade deals?”
Lord in Waiting, Lord Bethell said the government’s view is that the CJEU ruling “is neither scientific nor justified” and that ministers take a science-based, evidence-driven approach to regulation in this space. “We will revisit what regulations it might be appropriate to consider as the future landscape and our relations with the EU evolve in the coming years,” he added.
Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference in early Jan, Defra Secretary of State Theresa Villiers confirmed the government “will always be guided by the scientific evidence” when it comes to farming technologies.
“We have not made decisions on future divergences on GM technologies. For the moment we are happy with the regulations we have imported from the EU. These will stay in place until we believe there is a scientific justification to review them.”
Friends of the Earth say biotech companies have largely “over-promised and under-delivered” when it comes to advances with new breeding technologies.
“Conventional blight-resistant potatoes do exist, bred by the Savari Trust which struggles for funding, while the UK government wastes taxpayer money on developing GM lines,” commented FoE’s Clare Oxborrow.
