The Economist - UK (2022-05-28)

24 Britain The Economist May 28th 2022

Agriculturaltechnology

Tweak and ye shall find

T

hetomatoeslooklikeanyother.But

unlikethosewhichsitonsupermarket

shelves,theyareasource ofvitamind.

Thatisowingtothecleverworkofscien­

tistsattheJohnInnesCentreinNorwich,

whohaveusedgene­editingtechniquesto

boostthetomatoes’nutritionalvalue.By

makingsmalldeletionsintheplant’sge­

nometheyblockedtheproductionofa cer­

tainenzyme,promptingtheplantstoaccu­

mulateprovitamind3.Thisinturniscon­

vertedtovitamindonexposuretoultravi­

oletlight,suchasthatfoundinsunlight.A

single upgraded tomato could provide

around20%oftherecommendeddailyin­

takeofthevitamin.

Thisfruitwasproducedina laboratory;

noBritishfarmercouldgrowittoday.A

EuropeanCourtofJustice(ecj) rulingin

2018 madeitallbutimpossible togrow

gene­edited crops commercially across

Europe,includinginBritain.Evenrunning

researchtrialsbecameburdensome. The

rulingtherebytreatedgene­editing,which

worksby tweaking dna that is already

there,inthesamewayasearlygenetic­

modification(gm) techniques,whichwork

byaddingexternaldna, oftenfromdiffer­

entspecies,toa crop.

Britain’sdeparturefromtheeuhasgiv­

enitanopportunitytostrikeout onits

ownpath.Earlierthisyearthegovernment

madeiteasier forscientists to conduct

trialsofgene­edited crops. AndonMay

25thitintroducedlegislationthatwould

allowsuchcropstobecultivatedcommer­

ciallyinEngland.(Thatwillalsobe fol­

lowedbya reviewofEngland’sgmregime,

whichremainsstrictlyregulatedfornow.)

GeorgeEustice,theenvironmentsecretary,

hassaidthatgene­editedproductscould

beonshelvesassoonasnextyear.

Thatcouldbeaboonforfarmers,for

consumersandforBritain.Aswellaspro­

ducing nutrient­enriched foods, gene­

editing can increase yields, reduce the

amountofinsecticidesandfertiliserthat

cropsneed,andproducemoreclimate­tol­

erantcrops.

Thecriticismsofgene­editingareflim­

sy.Thereisnoevidencethatthetechnique

isunsafe(twodecadesofresearchonge­

netically modified crops have demon­

stratedtheirsafety,too).Unintendedside­

effectsaremorelikelytooccurwithcon­

ventionalplant­breedingmethods,which

irradiateseedstogeneraterandommuta­

tions.The worrythatbusinesseswillbe

abletopatentgene­editedcrops,making

farmersbeholdentobigagriculturalcom­

panies,isalsounfounded.Farmersalready

plantpatented,“hybrid”crops,whichare

produced by cross­pollinating different

plantvarieties;mostseemhappytodoso

becauseoftheyieldbenefitstheyoffer.

Forresearchers, the changes to crop

trialshavealreadyhadanimpact.Accord­

ingtoJohnathanNapieratRothamstedRe­

search, an agricultural­research institu­

tion inHarpenden, applyingforagene­

editingtrialusedtorequirereamsofdocu­

mentationanda longwaiting­period.Now

it takes“aboutoneminute”andhalfa page,

hesays.Theeaseofconductingtrialshas

alreadyledtoincreasedactivityfromBrit­

ishresearchers,saysGiladGershon,whose

company,TropicBiosciences,offersa tech­

nologyplatformforgene­editing.

Butproblemsremain.Oneistrade.The

eurequiresallgene­editedimportstobe

labelledandapproved,yetMrEusticehas

said hedoesnotthinkgene­edited pro­

ducts grown in Britainwillbe labelled.

That couldworsenalreadytensediscus­

sionsaroundtheflowofgoodsfromGreat

Britain into Northern Ireland, which is

treatedasbeinginsidetheeu’s singlemar­

ket. (Within Great Britain,the devolved

governmentsofWalesandScotlandhave

bothsaidtheywillnotyetallowtheculti­

vationofgene­editedcrops,althoughthey

cannotpreventtheirsale.)Suchdisruption

maybeshort­lived,however,astheEuro­

peanCommissionnowalsoplanstoliber­

alise  gene­editing  rules.  A  legislative  pro­

posal  is  planned  for  the  middle  of  2023,

and  if  that  passes,  the  euand  Britain  will

again be in alignment. 

A  bigger  issue  is  the  guiding  principle

of  the  British  government’s  gene­editing

regulation.  Rather  than  look  at  the  actual

properties  of  the  crops,  it  focuses  on  the

process  by  which  they  were  produced:  if

the crop “could have occurred naturally”, it

is allowed. Not only is that a nebulous defi­

nition, but according to the Royal Society, a

scientific  academy,  a  focus  on  process

“perpetuates the false assumption that risk

is determined by the breeding technology

rather than the outcomes that the breeding

technology is used to deliver”. 

An  outcome­based  system  would  treat

all crops the same, regardless of how they

were  created,  and  assess  the  safety  of  the

final product. Such an approach would re­

sult  in  a  regulatory  system  that  works  for

future  technologies,  and  also  allow  the

production of all types of genetically mod­

ified crops, not just gene­edited ones. The

government, in promising its gm“review”,

has hinted that it may indeed move in this

direction. But it is moving slowly, perhaps

because of negative public perceptions.

Those perceptions are the greatest chal­

lenge  that  gene­edited  produce  will  face.

Around a third of British adults think that

gene­edited  food  is  unsafe  to  eat;  31%  say

they  are  not  sure.  This  resistance  stems

from decades of scaremongering about gm

foods, along with a lack of awareness about

gene­editing’s advantages. If the public see

benefits  such  as  lower  prices  or  healthier

fruits, they may come to embrace the tech­

nology.  So  Professor  Napier  says  the  onus

is now on researchers to step up. “If you’ve

been  saying,  ‘What’s  blockading  us  from

delivering all these innovations and useful

stuff is the regulatory burden’,[and]ifthat

regulatory  burden  has  been removed,

where’s this flood of great stuff?”n

A new law allows the cultivation and sale of gene-edited crops. Good

You say tomato, I say gene-edited produce