Ministers are preparing to introduce legislation that will allow the growing of genetically modified crops in England and Wales. But the new legislation will not cover the use of this technology to create farm animals that have increased disease resistance or lower carbon footprints.
The decision has shocked some senior scientists, who had expected both uses of gene editing to be given the green light. They fear the decision could prevent the creation of stronger, healthier flocks and herds. However, animal welfare groups have welcomed the move.
Gene editing involves making small changes to the DNA of plants or animals to create new strains or breeds. The technology has replaced genetic modification (GM) techniques, which involve the transfer of entire genes from one species to another, and is strictly regulated by the EU.
The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, which authorizes the use of gene editing technology, was passed by the previous government. But secondary legislation is needed to implement the law and this has not been passed before the general election.
Agriculture Minister Daniel Zeichner has since announced that the current government will adopt that secondary legislation, but only for plants and food and feed derived from them. “No decision has been made on bringing forward legislation enabling the Precision Breeding Act for animals,” a spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said last week.
Scientists working on animal diseases were critical of this inaction. “This could have a detrimental impact on the research landscape in this country,” said Prof John Hammond, director of research at the Pirbright Institute, near Woking. “In an age of climate change and other threats, we must be able to make the best use of technologies like gene editing to improve the lives of animals.”
Professor Helen Sang of the Roslin Institute in Scotland agreed. “With a virulent strain of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome wiping out pig herds in Spain, African swine fever on the march north through Europe, and avian influenza virus detected in both dairy cattle and their milk in the U.S. , the importance of enabling all potential. solutions as soon as possible, including precision breeding, cannot be overstated,” she wrote in a letter to environment ministers.
However, the decision to indefinitely delay the introduction of genetically modified animals was welcomed by Penny Hawkins, head of the RSPCA’s Animals in Science Department. “Each year, about 12% of animal feed is wasted. So it is totally unethical to push animal productivity even further when so much has already been wasted,” she said.
Hawkins added that there were several arguments to support the use of gene editing to create more disease-resistant species. “However, in most cases, diseases are preventable through good housing, husbandry and veterinary care and supervision. Direct editing of animal genomes should be seen as a last resort,” she said. “And what happens if a gene modification turns out to be unstable? How will this be detected and how will these animals be protected and returned to conditions where they can be properly monitored?”
Other scientists point out that Great Britain is one of the leaders in the world in the field of genetic modification of animal breeds and similar technologies. If British researchers are prevented from developing their research, then there is a real risk that their expertise will dry up and the country will lose investment and scientific talent.
after promoting the newsletter
“We are creating opportunities to improve animal health and welfare, to reduce the burden of disease, but we are not creating the opportunity to bring it to the UK – unlike many other countries, such as the US and Brazil,” Hammond added.
“I can see a situation where we export our knowledge but end up importing the products created from that knowledge.”
Prof Johnathan Napier, director of science at Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire, said the government’s enthusiasm for plants over animals could be explained – at least in part – by the fact that there were potentially many more genetically modified crops in the pipeline than genetically modified ones. gene. the animals. “On the other hand, if you have a technology that can reduce the susceptibility of farmed animals to some pretty nasty diseases, why not use it?” he added.