This question may sound strange, but it is important in understanding the power of words and the nature of opposition to new technologies. Genetically modified crops continue to be opposed by activists, despite their great success with farmers and a complete lack of credible evidence of harm. Meanwhile, a veil is drawn over the use of GM micro-organisms in the pharmaceutical sector and even the food industry.
Food, of course, is a uniquely emotive issue, and always likely to attract more concerns than processes which go on in stainless steel vessels in high tech factories. It is correspondingly easier to create scare stories about food. In practice, the major problems either relate to quantity (eating either more than your body needs or insufficient to keep it healthy on a regular basis), balance (eating too little of essential nutrients or too much of a particular component) or contamination (particularly food poisoning).
The perils of overeating are well-recognised and currently the focus of plenty of attention. Hardly a week goes by without a study or news item about the ‘epidemic’ of obesity, the dangers of sugar or carbohydrates generally (the latest evil after a period of concentration on fats) or some recommendation for a social engineering solution. Similarly, the statistical health risks of consuming too much salt or fat are well known to most people and the increasing incidence of rickets is a reminder that we either need sufficient Vitamin D in the diet or need moderate exposure to sunshine.
These are all chronic health issues (although nutritional imbalances can be quickly corrected). However, there are also acute health problems caused by eating contaminated food. Most of these are short-lived and go unreported, but infection with Salmonella or E. Coli 0157 is a serious issue. In the worst case, ingestion of tiny amounts of botulinum toxin is often fatal.
Set against these well-recognised health issues, concerns about the possible effects of genetic modification are sometimes wildly exaggerated by campaigners. It is, of course, entirely reasonable to be cautious with any new technology, which is why GM ingredients are the most intensely-studied of any of the foods we consume. The problem is that concerns are very easily put into people’s minds and they are not necessarily open to rational argument. Putting in place stringent regulations tends to reinforce the concerns, rather than allay them.
In practice, most non-scientists seem to have at best a hazy idea of what genetic modification is, but the term can induce a knee-jerk reaction. The perception built up is of tampering with nature, with ‘Frankenfood’ encapsulating the fears in a single emotive word. GM is quite narrowly defined as the incorporation of genetic material from one organism into the genome of another, in the case of plants normally using either Agrobacterium or the gene gun.
In either case, a carefully constructed genetic sequence, with appropriate promoter and termination sections, is incorporated randomly into the plant genome. Viable plants are tested to ensure the added sequence is functional and does not unduly affect other metabolic functions before the best candidate is developed further and submitted for approval via EFSA. Approval is not for a variety per se, but for what is referred to as an ‘event’, ie a specific pattern of incorporation and expression of the transgene. This can be cross-bred into a range of varieties adapted for particular conditions and bulked up for sale.
Some people argue that our species has been genetically modifying plants and animals for millennia by breeding and selection. After all, modern cereal and vegetable plants bear little apparent relationship to their wild ancestors and the wide range of physical characteristics displayed by breeds of dog ultimately all derive from the wolf. Equally, there are plenty of examples of new crop varieties being produced by chemical or radiation-induced mutagenesis. Genomes may be completely scrambled, with multiple new and uncharacterised genetic mutations, but these are still regulated in a much more relaxed way than GMOs.
Regulation has to be based on a definition of what is covered and, in this case, the coverage is quite clear. We are where we are. But things have moved on technologically since the development of recombinant DNA techniques in the 1980s. Some scientists and companies have high hopes for what is termed cisgenics, whereby the same techniques are used to transfer genetic material between two related species, with no ‘foreign’ DNA being present in the final cell.
Their hope is that cisgenics and transgenics would be classified differently, with the former not having to carry the ‘GM’ definition. In today’s EU, this looks absurdly optimistic. There may be a rational case to be made for such a differentiation, but it is much more likely that the process-based definition of GM will continue to apply. This does not look like a viable way to make the products of rDNA technology more easily marketable.
Other more sophisticated techniques are also at or near market. Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN) technology is an elegant technique which enables specific sites on a genome to be targeted and utilises the organism’s own repair mechanisms to make precise edits to genes. Similarly, transcription activator-like nucleases (TALENs) are enzymes which can be engineered to target any DNA sequence in a complex genome.
Such techniques permit very precise manipulation of genes to tailor traits in the end variety, without having to resort to the random insertion of genes from unrelated species. They are likely to be important components of the toolkit for the emerging field of synthetic biology. But, in a recent case in New Zealand, the High Court overturned a ruling by the Environmental Protection Authority that ZNFs and TALENs lay outside the definition of GMOs.
This was highly significant, because New Zealand agriculture is currently GM-free and the NZ Sustainability Council, which brought the case, clearly sees any new techniques of DNA manipulation as weakening that position. If this precedent is followed elsewhere then the definition of GM will continue to widen and new technologies will face high barriers to market entry.
This unfortunately looks inescapable. In the real world, as much concern could be created over such new techniques as over GM, even if they were to be classified differently. Activists will continue to campaign against ‘unnatural’ plant breeding techniques and what they consider to be corporate control of agriculture. Consumers, however, are not necessarily as wary as they are portrayed. Once new products with real nutritional or quality benefits get to market, things may look very different, whatever legal definitions may apply.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
____________________________________________________