Pros and cons of gene-editing crops for food
Controversial technique could improve food security but consumer concerns persist
The government is pushing ahead with legislation that may pave the way for gene-edited food to be grown and sold in England.
The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill seeks to modify UK regulation on genetically modified organisms and marks “a major departure from EU policy”, said FarmingUK.
Farming Minister Mark Spencer told LBC’s Nick Ferrari that Britain needed to “protect itself” by “using the technologies available to us” to safeguard food supplies as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The aim is to “develop crops that are more resilient to disease, climate change and other impacts, and less reliant on pesticides”, said Politico’s London Playbook.
But the prospect of gene-edited food on British supermarket shelves has proved controversial.
1. Pro: food security amid war
Food security has been a growing concern during the conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s blockades in the invaded country are preventing the export of produce including wheat, leading to rising food prices and global shortages.
Britain is “heavily reliant” on food imports, said The Telegraph, but the gene-editing bill would “remove unnecessary barriers inherited from the EU” and boost food production in the UK. Professor Gideon Henderson, a scientific adviser to the government, told The Guardian that gene-editing could “increase food security” for the UK.
2. Con: public acceptance
The public appetite for genome-edited food is dependent on “perceptions of risks and benefits”, said a January 2022 briefing for the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (Post).
Although the perception of risk is “often said to be lower for genome-editing than modification”, “polarised debates” on the issue may “increase public disquiet”, the briefing continued. Education was key, because “surveys and textual analyses” have found that consumers have a “low level of knowledge of genome-editing”.
3. Pro: resistance to disease
An estimated 20% to 40% of crop yield worldwide is lost to pests and diseases, according to the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI).
But “precision technologies allow us to speed up the breeding of crops that have a natural resistance to diseases”, then environment secretary George Eustice told The Telegraph as the bill was unveiled in May.
4. Con: traceability for consumers
A survey last year by the Food Standards Agency found that most UK consumers wanted gene-edited products to be clearly identifiable in supermarkets. But the government is planning to allow these products to be sold without such labelling.
Conservative think-tank Bright Blue has called for greater transparency in labelling and said that consumers should not be “tricked”, The Times reported. The January parliamentary briefing called for an international public registry of all commercial agricultural biotechnology products, including genome editing.
5. Pro: greater nutrition
Gene-editing could be used to create more nutritious crops, such as vitamin D-enriched tomatoes. Earlier this year, scientists announced that they had created genetically edited tomatoes that each contained as much provitamin D3 – the precursor to vitamin D – as two eggs.
Guy Poppy, a professor of ecology at the University of Southampton, told FoodNavigator that “gene-editing tomatoes to accumulate provitamin D3 at levels above recommended dietary guidelines could result in better health for many”.
6. Con: animal suffering
Critics claim the government bill is likely to pave the way for similar changes for livestock gene-editing. Although such changes would be dependent on a regulatory system to safeguard animal welfare, campaigners have warned that livestock gene-editing could reinforce the use of factory farming.
Kierra Box, of Friends of the Earth, told The Guardian that gene-editing was “genetic modification by a different name”. The technique “still focuses on altering the genetic code of plants and animals to deal with the problems caused by poor soils, the over-use of pesticides and intensive farming”, she said.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Chas Newkey-Burden has been part of The Week Digital team for more than a decade and a journalist for 25 years, starting out on the irreverent football weekly 90 Minutes, before moving to lifestyle magazines Loaded and Attitude. He was a columnist for The Big Issue and landed a world exclusive with David Beckham that became the weekly magazine’s bestselling issue. He now writes regularly for The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, Metro, FourFourTwo and the i new site. He is also the author of a number of non-fiction books.
-
The history of Donald Trump's election conspiracy theories
The Explainer How the 2024 Republican nominee has consistently stoked baseless fears of a stolen election
By David Faris Published
-
Two ancient cities have been discovered along the Silk Road
Under the radar The discovery changed what was known about the old trade route
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
'People shouldn't have to share the road with impaired drivers'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
The North Korean troops readying for deployment in Ukraine
The Explainer Third country wading into conflict would be 'the first step to a world war' Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned
By The Week UK Published
-
Experts call for a Nato bank to 'Trump-proof' military spending
Under The Radar A new lender could aid co-operation and save millions of pounds, say think tanks
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
What happens if Russia declares war on Nato?
Today's Big Question Fears are growing after Vladimir Putin's 'unusually specific warning' to Western governments
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
Missile escalation: will long-range rockets make a difference to Ukraine?
Today's Big Question Kyiv is hoping for permission to use US missiles to strike deep into Russian territory
By Richard Windsor, The Week UK Published
-
Atesh: the Ukrainian partisans taking on Russia
Under The Radar Underground resistance fighters are risking their lives to defend their country
By Elizabeth Carr-Ellis, The Week UK Published
-
'Second only to a nuclear bomb' – the controversial arms Russia is using in Ukraine
The Explainer Thermobaric bombs 'capable of vaporising human bodies' have been used against Ukraine
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
The peaceful archipelago that may take up arms
Under The Radar Russia's invasion of Ukraine has left the Åland Islands 'peculiarly vulnerable'
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
What can Ukraine gain from Russia incursion?
Today's Big Question Gamble to boost morale, improve negotiating position and show the West it can still win is 'paying off – for now'
By Elliott Goat, The Week UK Published