As Westminster continues its love affair with high-tech industrial agriculture, the dismantling of GM safeguards in the UK is underway.
Towards the end of 2021, our Environment Secretary announced regulatory exemptions for field trials of "plants produced by genetic technologies where genetic changes could have occurred naturally or could have been a result of traditional breeding methods".
This begs the question how do you define what could have (but didn't) 'occur naturally' or could have (but hasn't) been a result of traditional breeding. Answers offered so far are:
DEFRA produced some nice graphs and percentages in its Report on the Consultation, which make the government actions on GM seem democratic. That is, until you discover that actually a staggering 88% of individual consultation responses, along with a hefty 64% of the businesses that took part, said they wanted new gene technologies to remain under the protection of current GM regulations. The Consultation figures were massaged by omitting all responses not made through the official on-line platform (although e-mail and postal submission were invited) plus all responses on the platform deemed to be part of a "campaign". In the end less than a third of responses were included in DEFRA's numerical analysis.
Comment. Democracy is not DEFRA's strong point.
Readers of GM-free Scotland will be well aware of the vagaries of gene editing [1,2,3,4], and there is mounting scientific evidence of both on- and off-target genome changes caused by those 'precise' edits.
A recently published review of market-oriented gene-edited crop plants pointed out that many of the induced DNA changes go beyond the "reach, possibilities, and speed" of conventional breeding. To expand on this: gene editing can force artificial changes in regions of the genome not usually (or healthily?) subject to mutation; not all (possibly very few) artificial changes forced using gene editing technology would ever happen otherwise; abrupt, isolated changes to the genome don't happen in nature because they are destabilising to the plant's physiology and a risk to its consumers.
The review also found that nearly half of the plants had undergone complex gene-editing in which several genes or gene variants had been changed simultaneously.
Camelina for oilseed production which was edited to generate higher oleic acid oil had 18 genes knocked out simultaneously to achieve the desired change [5].
The notion that a gene edit is a single, simple, controlled DNA change is not a reality.
Germany's Federal Agency for Nature Conservation advised that people must take responsibility for their actions:
- "this question is problematic" (The Royal Society)
- "it is exceptionally challenging to define what changes to the genome could have been produced by 'traditional' breeding" (The Roslin Institute, creators of Dolly the cloned sheep and experts in GMOs for agriculture)
- "there are no suitable criteria" (the most common answer from 6,440 members of the public who responded to the Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Consultation on the Regulation of Genetic Technologies)
- "The risk profile does not depend on whether a genetic change is already present in nature or can theoretically also be obtained through breeding", in other words the question is irrelevant (German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation)
- "you can't" (GM-free Scotland)
DEFRA produced some nice graphs and percentages in its Report on the Consultation, which make the government actions on GM seem democratic. That is, until you discover that actually a staggering 88% of individual consultation responses, along with a hefty 64% of the businesses that took part, said they wanted new gene technologies to remain under the protection of current GM regulations. The Consultation figures were massaged by omitting all responses not made through the official on-line platform (although e-mail and postal submission were invited) plus all responses on the platform deemed to be part of a "campaign". In the end less than a third of responses were included in DEFRA's numerical analysis.
Comment. Democracy is not DEFRA's strong point.
Readers of GM-free Scotland will be well aware of the vagaries of gene editing [1,2,3,4], and there is mounting scientific evidence of both on- and off-target genome changes caused by those 'precise' edits.
A recently published review of market-oriented gene-edited crop plants pointed out that many of the induced DNA changes go beyond the "reach, possibilities, and speed" of conventional breeding. To expand on this: gene editing can force artificial changes in regions of the genome not usually (or healthily?) subject to mutation; not all (possibly very few) artificial changes forced using gene editing technology would ever happen otherwise; abrupt, isolated changes to the genome don't happen in nature because they are destabilising to the plant's physiology and a risk to its consumers.
The review also found that nearly half of the plants had undergone complex gene-editing in which several genes or gene variants had been changed simultaneously.
Camelina for oilseed production which was edited to generate higher oleic acid oil had 18 genes knocked out simultaneously to achieve the desired change [5].
The notion that a gene edit is a single, simple, controlled DNA change is not a reality.
Germany's Federal Agency for Nature Conservation advised that people must take responsibility for their actions:
"While humans cannot prevent evolutionary events, they do have to take responsibility if they actively modify organisms through genetic engineering".
Also, since rules on GMOs need to be coherent, independent and complete, it pointed out that "The aim of any political initiative must therefore be to prevent fragmentation of the law".
Westminster take note!
How did our government get itself into such a muddle? A recently published analysis suggests that vested scientific and commercial interests have insinuated a narrow narrative which presents gene editing as easy and precise, while the gene is a fixed, stable entity under technological control. This jaw-dropping wishful thinking is politely referred to as a "strategic simplification".
Now that you're getting some idea of the gene-edited nonsense being fed to your MPs and regulators, give them something more wholesome to chew on.
Pre-Brexit, UK politicians were able to sit back and let the EU do all their GM thinking for them. Now they sorely need the realities and risks of GM in food and farming firmly installed in their awareness: it's important to write to your MP and voice your concerns, especially if they happen to be wavering Boris supporters or in opposition.
You can contact your MP using www.writetothem.com
Also, it's important to inform yourself. If you want a recent detailed briefing on the latest problems found in gene editing, check out GeneWatch Briefings:
Westminster take note!
How did our government get itself into such a muddle? A recently published analysis suggests that vested scientific and commercial interests have insinuated a narrow narrative which presents gene editing as easy and precise, while the gene is a fixed, stable entity under technological control. This jaw-dropping wishful thinking is politely referred to as a "strategic simplification".
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Now that you're getting some idea of the gene-edited nonsense being fed to your MPs and regulators, give them something more wholesome to chew on.
Pre-Brexit, UK politicians were able to sit back and let the EU do all their GM thinking for them. Now they sorely need the realities and risks of GM in food and farming firmly installed in their awareness: it's important to write to your MP and voice your concerns, especially if they happen to be wavering Boris supporters or in opposition.
You can contact your MP using www.writetothem.com
Also, it's important to inform yourself. If you want a recent detailed briefing on the latest problems found in gene editing, check out GeneWatch Briefings:
On-target effects of genome editing techniques, September 2021
Finally, sign up to GM Freeze "as-it-happens news updates" via twitter@gmfreeze, Facebook/GMFreezeUK, or visit www.gmfreeze.org/emails to add yourself to their e-mail list.
Background
[1] THE PRECISION PROBLEM IN GENOME EDITING - August, 2021
[2] CRISPR'S EPIGENETIC SCARS - August, 2021
[3] CRISPR CATASTROPHE IN THE MAKING? - August, 2021
[4] LASER-PRECISE GENE-EDITED ACCIDENT - August, 2021
[5] FISH OIL FROM A PLANT - March 2014
Sources:
Finally, sign up to GM Freeze "as-it-happens news updates" via twitter@gmfreeze, Facebook/GMFreezeUK, or visit www.gmfreeze.org/emails to add yourself to their e-mail list.
Background
[1] THE PRECISION PROBLEM IN GENOME EDITING - August, 2021
[2] CRISPR'S EPIGENETIC SCARS - August, 2021
[3] CRISPR CATASTROPHE IN THE MAKING? - August, 2021
[4] LASER-PRECISE GENE-EDITED ACCIDENT - August, 2021
[5] FISH OIL FROM A PLANT - March 2014
Sources:
- New
scientific publication highlights novel risks and applications of gene
editing, GM Watch, 27.10.21
- Katherina
Kawall, 2021, The Generic Risks and the Potential of SDN-1 Applications
in Crop Plants, Plants
- New
Developments and Regulatory Issues in Plant Genetic Engineering,
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, October 2021
- Esha
Shah, et al., 2018, The complexity of the gene and the precision
of CRISPR: What is the gene that is being edited? Elementa
- Dismantling of GM safeguards begins, despite strong public opposition, GM Freeze, Thin Ice, Issue 60, December 2021
Photo Creative Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.