The Gene Genie...

I recently posed the question on what happens when science gives us the answers but we, the general public, do not particularly care for them. This article in Feed Navigator gives some idea of the issues that follow. 

The debate on the use of genetic modification (GM) techniques has been played out in national and European parliaments, on the pages of scientific journals and the popular press and across the food industry on every continent on the planet where agriculture feeds locally, and exports internationally. 

Campaigners believe that we do not yet know the effect of GM on public health and the environment. Scientists believe that they are only working with 'nature's tools'. 

Why now then, after two decades of entrenched opinion and debates of varying intellectual quality, is this again in the news? Well, during this period, between the first GM crops arriving in the marketplace and our 21st century desire for more 'plant-based protein', the EU has been busy...

There are five building blocks in the EU's legislative approach to GMO. These include three directives and two regulations which cover food and feed, release of GMOs into the environment, traceability and labelling and transboundary movement. The purpose of all of this is to protect human and animal health and to allow for informed choice by consumers. It also harmonises new GMO approval and ensures that the authorisation process is fair and transparent. 

What is currently proposed in the UK is to allow the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the power to redefine what constitutes a GMO in law. Now, as we know, the quickest way to avoid having to amend a lot of troublesome rules is to redefine who or what must abide by them (people living in 'cities' without a cathedral - you know what I mean...). In this case it is likely that a distinction between gene editing and genetic modification will be made, with the former being declassified. So, is this fair? Gene editing is one of several tools used in genetic modification and tends in some quarters to be viewed differently due to only using existing DNA. However, to the European Court of Justice, during a 2018 review, this was semantics and they promptly ruled that GE is, in fact, GM and should be legislated as such.

This will be hotly debated - of that have no doubt - but whatever the outcome it cannot be for the benefit of the consumer if reclassifying some GMOs means the simultaneous removal of the commitment to protect public health and allow informed choices. The gene genie is well and truly out, and re-labelling the bottle will not tempt it back inside...