‎Following on from the article by Dale Sanders of the John Innes Institute, on the pros of GM crops, this second piece in our series on sustainable agriculture takes a look at the issue and presents an opposing view.

Written by Pat Thomas, a campaigner, author and director and former editor of The Ecologist. She is currently a director of Beyond GM in the UK.

Gene editing – solution or distraction?

Up until a year or so ago, you could be forgiven for thinking that the issue of genetically engineered foods in the UK had faded quietly away.

It hadn’t, of course. While consumer scepticism remained a big hurdle to introducing GMOs into the UK food system – and more widely into Europe – genetic engineers were creating new genetic technologies, imagining new ways to apply them to food and farming and, perhaps most importantly, inventing new narratives to position genetic engineering as simply a natural step on the continuum of plant breeding and improvement of our crop species.[1]

In the last decade genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) became ‘gene editing’, genetic engineering became ‘biotechnology’ and genetic engineers became ‘biotechnologists’.

‘Sustainable intensification’, ‘nature-based solutions’, ‘precision breeding’ and ‘speed breeding’ have all become euphemisms for genetic engineering.

Government policy is now woven with these phrases[2] and there are currently political moves to “liberate” the UK’s biotechnology sector from “restrictive” European regulations that are said to hamper UK research and development.

Even with these so-called “restrictive” regulations, Europe is responsible for nearly half of the global research in this field[3] and more than 100 genetically engineered crops have been approved,[4] primarily as imports for animal feed and fuel purposes.

But the fierceness with which the government’s recent Public Consultation on the Regulation of Genetic Technologies[5] was met suggests that the public and civil society remain wary.

Promises

Genetic engineering technologies in farming and food have been controversial from the moment they were introduced.

Genetic engineering has long been promoted as a way of making farming more sustainable, for instance by lowering pesticide use, reducing the need for fertilisers, increasing yields and therefore profits, lifting farmers in the developing world out of poverty, improving nutrition and biodiversity and ‘feeding the world’.

Now we have a development in genetic engineering in the form of gene editing. Gene editing describes a suite of new technologies that can be used singly or in combination to alter the DNA, and therefore the traits of plants we grow as crops. The process may be new – so new in fact that only a couple of gene-edited crops have been commercialised – but its proponents make all the same old claims for benefits.

The UK government’s case is that gene editing is not the same as genetic engineering and should not be subject to regulatory oversight. That view directly conflicts with the ruling of the European Court of Justice, made after a two-year long review of the science, which says it is – and it should be regulated as such.[6]

For nearly 30 years biotechnology companies have made promises that one day genetic engineering will bring bountiful rewards. We are still waiting.[7]

There are currently no genetically engineered crops we can plant that are more nutritious, or drought tolerant or salt tolerant. There are none that have significantly reduced the use of pesticides – in fact most GM crops are linked to higher pesticide use. Studies show that GM crops give no significant gains in yield or profit. The developing world has long fought against the imposition of such crops, which represent to them corporate control and a loss of food sovereignty. During the era of GMOs, the extent of world hunger and malnutrition has not changed.

The failure of GMOs to achieve their goals is not related to regulation but to an idea that is fatally flawed.

The need for change

As many reviews of agriculture have shown, agriculture is in need of wholesale reform. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has stated that “Agriculture can’t remain the same”.[8] As far back as 2009 the report ‘Agriculture at a Crossroads’[9], concluded that “Business as usual was not an option”.[10]

Yet the vision of gene editing is mired in old and harmful, ‘business as usual’ paradigms.

Many new crops are being gene edited to continue the production of herbicide tolerant[11] and insect repelling[12] plants – both of which have been shown to increase the use of environmentally damaging pesticides which ultimately encourage resistance amongst weeds and insects.

They also favour large industrial monocultures of maize, soya, rapeseed and cotton which damage soil and destroy local biodiversity. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that 75% of the world’s crop diversity has been lost globally through this kind of industrial food production.[13]

Unpredictable = unreliable

Gene editing techniques such as CRISPR* are promoted as being more precise – and because they use materials from related species – ‘safer’ and more ‘natural’ than older style genetic engineering.

But, precise is not the same as predictable or controllable. It is a scientific fact that altering the genome in this way raises the risk of multiple off-target effects.[14]

Deregulation removes the requirement to test for and monitor these effects, as well as the responsibilities of biotechnology companies if things go wrong.

Newer gene editing applications also boast that they don’t add foreign DNA. This is misleading because gene editing can be and is used to insert foreign DNA into an organism. But even if no new DNA is added, the act of cutting into the genome, however precisely, can have unintended consequences.

For example, a recent study of GM camelina plants, engineered to be rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (and currently being trialled in the UK), found that cutting out unwanted genes resulted in impaired growth and plant deformities.15 It warned also of environmental effects, since changing the plant’s natural composition of fatty acids could make it more vulnerable to pests and therefore affect existing food webs.

Other research suggests that trying to engineer higher levels of nutrients into plants, has resulted in lower levels of other beneficial compounds: disturbances in nutrients such as amino acids, and
fatty acids have been found in GM maize and GM rice, significantly lower isoflavone levels in GM soya and lower vitamin E in a GM rapeseed that was engineered for more vitamin A.[16] [17] [18] [19]

Some engineered traits can also mask nutrient loss during storage. Apples[20] and potatoes[21] altered so they don’t turn brown when cut, bruised or crushed provide no visual cues about their freshness and therefore their levels of nutrients.

Quickening the pace

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of gene editing is its pace. Scientists are experimenting with every aspect of the genomes of plants, seeing how far these living organisms can be altered to meet human needs.

So-called “gene drives”, which drive genetic changes through whole species in the field, essentially convert the environment into the laboratory.[22 Interfering RNA (RNAi) sprays, hailed as an alternative to conventional pesticides, also spread ‘edits’ throughout insect species in the field which could, in some cases, be passed on for up to 80 generations.[23]

This isn’t science fiction. It is happening now.

The pace and freewheeling nature of experimentation, has led engineers to claim that biotechnology breaks all boundaries and has no limits; that it is transformational, game changing and disruptive.[24]

But the speed of development has also outstripped our ability to understand and monitor unintended consequences. Deregulation will make it that much harder.

Using technology intelligently

Part of the current argument for deregulating agricultural GMOs is that farmers are in urgent need of innovations to help them farm sustainably. This may be so, but it is simplistic to conflate technology – particularly high-tech solutions like gene editing – with innovation.

Some of the most innovative solutions involve low tech, open source and affordable agroecological methods that all farmers can use right now. These include agroecological approaches such as crop rotation, intercropping, soil enrichment and integrated crop and livestock systems.

Conventional plant breeding is producing a large number of crops and new varieties delivering increased yields, disease resistance, drought and flood resistance, salt tolerance and nutritional enhancement across cereals, maize, rice, tomatoes, potatoes, legumes and fruits, which are important for the developing and the developed world.[25]

Many breeders now use ‘molecular markers’ to track genes of interest through the breeding process using marker assisted selection (MAS). This is an example of responsible and effective genetic technology that results in conventionally-bred plants with desirable traits. Examples of MAS-bred varieties include flood tolerant rice, cassava that is resistant to mosaic disease and wheat resistant to stripe rust fungus.

No one is saying that gene editing will never produce anything of value. But for the moment it remains an experimental technology with no history of safe use in the food system, and multiple downsides.

What’s more, it is widely recognised that there are limits to what can be achieved solely through plant breeding in terms of ‘saving the world’.

Framing gene editing as a quick fix for sustainability also distracts attention from more meaningful action at a time when meaningful action is desperately needed. In the end, reducing meat consumption and finding ways to tackle waste within the food system[26] is likely to have a greater – and faster – impact in terms of fighting climate change and feeding the hungry, than genetically engineering crops ever could.