Corn crops

Source: Pexels

Left unchecked, unfounded myths around gene editing threaten the positive benefits it can bring

Talk to someone about gene editing of crops, and you risk a horrified ‘not in my back yard’ reaction. Images of some sort of Frankenstein plant, dominating a landscape farmed to within an inch of its life, may come to mind.

The reality is far less dramatic and, somewhat quietly, revolutionary. In what is a big step forward, the UK is to speed up a bill granting approval for gene editing crops, in a bid to bolster food security in the wake of the conflict in Ukraine.

The rationale is simple: gene editing allows the process of natural selection and conventional breeding to be sped up. We can swiftly create crop varieties that are more resilient to drought, can produce a higher yield from the same amount of land, improve food quality and reduce wastage. Improved biodiversity through using fewer pesticides and needing less land will enable nature to thrive, while helping to address climate change. The technology behind this remarkable process has made huge strides in recent years.

Previously, gene editing was not a viable course of action for UK crop growers. Legislation in the EU counted gene editing in the same category as genetically modified organisms (GMO), which required a strict approval process that was lengthy, costly and uncertain, so investment went elsewhere.

With the UK having, for better or worse, left the EU bloc, there is now a golden opportunity to embrace genome editing as a faster means of plant breeding. This move will allow a more rapid development of new varieties that can contribute to some of society’s most difficult problems including food security, environmental degradation and climate change. As the ongoing Ukraine crisis continues to throw global food markets into disarray, the decision to speed up legislation could not be more timely.

According to George Eustice, we could now see the changes pass through parliament in as little as a few months. This would bring the UK in line with the approach taken by other countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Japan and Australia. Even member states within the EU, such as France, no longer wish GE to be regulated in the same way as GMO.

The difference between GMO and gene-edited crops is significant and vitally important. GMO crops are modified by using DNA from other species. Gene editing, on the other hand, produces precise changes by removing or replacing genes from the same species. The changes in legislation that cover gene editing will result in changes that could have happened through conventional breeding. While there is still understandable scepticism on this technique, we should be enthused by the opportunities it offers to the environment and society.

However, a word of caution. Negative perceptions of gene editing being pushed in the media, as seen in the widespread coverage after the public consultation last year. While unfounded, left unchecked these myths threaten the positive benefits this gene editing approval can bring. If the British consumer continues to be sold misinformation, we will see this reflected in their shopping trolleys and on supermarket shelves.

Government certainly deserves some praise for this bold decision to speed up gene editing legislation. But now the real challenge begins. Working hard with farmers across the country to implement widespread perception change must be their top priority if they want to make this post-Brexit achievement a post-Brexit success – particularly in today’s globally challenging market.

Gene editing can translate decades of scientific research into the development of crops that are healthier to consume and reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture. It can rightly be a boon to UK food production and productivity that not only bolsters the resilience of our food supply, but positions us as a world leader in agri-science for years to come. But its success will, ultimately, be measured by the public, and their willingness to embrace this change at supermarket checkouts.