Genetically modified food takes England one step further as laws loosen | DG

George Eustice, Secretary of the Environment, said: Gene editing has the ability to harness the genetic resources provided by nature. It is a tool that could help us address some of the biggest challenges we face in food security, climate change and biodiversity loss.

Ministers want to use Brexit to allow gene editing, a form of genetic modification that is severely restricted in the EU, for use in the UK, despite a public consultation which found that 87% of those who responded considered the crops modified by genes as a higher risk than traditional methods of crop breeding.

Gene editing involves the use and modification of genes already present in an organism, unlike other forms of genetic modification, which can use genes imported from other plants or animals. Gene editing can be used to mimic the effects of traditional plant breeding, but it is accelerated because it is done in the laboratory instead of requiring years of repeated selective breeding.

Proponents say gene editing could be used safely to grow crops with increased yields or additional nutritional benefits, or which are resistant to pests and diseases and withstand drought, high temperatures or d other effects of climate degradation.

Scientists have welcomed the changes. Angela Karp, Director and CEO of Rothamsted Research, which had a field trial approved for genetically modified wheat before the changes, said: Genetic modification gives us a powerful new tool to speed up the generation of plant varieties which can potentially be more nutritious. , more resilient to climate change and cultivated with reduced environmental impact.

We look forward to leveraging our gene editing science to help produce the crops farmers will need. Cop26 emissions targets and beyond. We will now be able to intensify our studies at the field level and accelerate the creation of new varieties capable of sustaining our agriculture.

Guy Poppy, professor of ecology at the University of Southampton, also welcomed the development, but said: while I understand why Defra offers a proportionate step-by-step process, I am concerned that the journey along this path is slow, complex and busy. with continuing claims and counterclaims.

However, activists said the government was ignoring public concerns on the issue. Liz ONeill, director of the GM Freeze Coordination Group, said: Genetic engineering, whatever name you choose, needs to be properly regulated. The government wants to trade the safety net of appropriate public protections for a free high-tech system for all, but our food, our farms and the natural environment deserve better.

She added: This announcement is described as a response to the Defras consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies. However, no details were released. [at the time of writing] on what George Eustice actually learned from exercise. The consultation submissions GM Freeze has seen have raised a wide range of concerns about Defras’ proposals for dismantling GM warranties, but the announcement suggests the minister is not listening.

Joanna Lewis, director of policy and strategy at the Soil Association, said gene editing was the wrong approach and the government should instead focus on helping farmers become more sustainable.

What would help is a reversal of the lack of investment in agro-ecological, nature-friendly methods and farmer-led technologies, she said. We should invest in solutions that address the root causes of diseases and pests first, including lack of crop diversity, decline of beneficial insects and animal overpopulation. We need to increase soil carbon, wildlife and animal welfare on farms to solve climatic and natural crises, and protect human health.

Gideon Henderson, chief scientific adviser to Defra, said the government is closely examining the implications of any changes to UK GM organisms law for future trade deals. The EU and some other countries impose heavy restrictions.

Even if GM organisms and associated products were omitted from trade agreements, there could be concerns that other agricultural products could be affected in crops, through potential cross-contamination, and in the case of meat from livestock consuming crops. GM.