I was
interested to read a press release today with the headline “Gene editing
creates potential to protect the nation’s environment, pollinators and wildlife”.
Consultation
on future of gene editing was launched by the Environment Secretary, George
Eustice, at the Oxford Farming Conference today.
A section of
the released statement reads:
The way
that plants and animals grow is controlled by the information in their genes.
For centuries, farmers and growers have carefully chosen to breed stronger,
healthier individual animals or plants so that the next generation has these
beneficial traits - but this is a slow process.
Technologies
developed in the last decade enable genes to be edited much more quickly and
precisely to mimic the natural breeding process, helping to target plant and
animal breeding to help the UK reach its vital climate and biodiversity goals
in a safe and sustainable way.
Gene
editing is different to genetic modification where DNA from one species is
introduced to a different one. Gene edited organisms do not contain DNA from
different species, and instead only produce changes that could be made slowly
using traditional breeding methods. But now, due to a legal ruling from the
European Court of Justice in 2018 gene editing is regulated in the same way as
genetic modification.
The consultation announced
today will focus on stopping certain gene editing organisms from being
regulated in the same way as genetic modification, as long as they could have
been produced naturally or through traditional breeding. This approach has
already been adopted by a wide range of countries across the world, including
Japan, Australia and Argentina.
Government
will continue to work with farming and environmental groups to develop the
right rules and ensure robust controls are in place to maintain the highest
food safety standards while supporting the production of healthier food.
Potentially,
I recognise that gene editing could be a powerful tool within agriculture,
offering breeders the potential to wipe out genetic disease, improve drought
resistance, boost nutrient efficiency and prolong shelf life, to name but a few
benefits.
But as Peter
Stevenson, chief policy adviser at the campaigning group Compassion in World Farming
said, “the ways in which livestock had been bred for profitable traits in the
past suggested the development of gene editing would be harmful to animals. He
pointed to genetic selection for broiler chickens, whereby the fast growth
rates gave rise to leg abnormalities and lameness, and in laying hens,
selecting for high egg production caused osteoporosis, leaving the hens vulnerable
to bone fractures”.
Patrick
Holden, of the Sustainable Food Trust, said gene editing would “further
accelerate the devastating narrowing of the gene pool which has been a feature
of post-war farming”.
I would
highlight a non-agricultural example to make the decision makers think long and
hard before finalising their judgment. Remember, the following has nothing to
do with feeding the world, but simply a human trait for what some see as “pleasing
to the eye”. Can humans really be trusted with gene editing?
A number of
dog breeders have a lot to answer for in my opinion. For instance, Pug dogs are
one of the most inbred of all dog breeds. Knee disorders, stomach problems,
larynx collapses, elongated soft pallets and breathing problems brought about
because of its squashed face are just some of the issues that affects pugs.
Other
problems which pugs must put up with are, curvature of the spine and a propensity
to suffer from eye injuries, largely caused by a lack of facial structure which
would normally protect the dog. The spinal problems are caused by dog breeder’s
desire to have a curled tail called a ‘screw tail’.
 |
| Pugs have been radically changed through selective breeding |
Another
example, found in a recent study, is that 70% of Cavalier King Charles Spaniels
had syringomyelia by the age of six years. Syringomyelia is the formation of
fluid filled cavities in the spinal cord because of abnormalities in the
pressure of cerebrospinal fluid due to a mismatch between the size of the brain
and the skull or with abnormality of the skull shape. This has been brought on
because of the desire by dog show judges for an ever-smaller head size.
Dogs with
syringomyelia can show severe signs of pain around their head, neck, and
forelimbs and may whine, yelp or cry and contort their necks, become withdrawn,
develop a weak or wobbling gait, such that walking becomes increasingly
difficult.
Now bear in
mind, these problems have been brought about by selective breeding, quite a
slow process. Gene editing can fast-forward animal and plant traits extremely
quickly.
No comments:
Post a Comment