Ministers are preparing to introduce legislation that would allow the cultivation of gene-edited crops in England and Wales. But the new legislation will not cover the use of this technology to create farm animals that have increased resistance to disease or lower carbon footprints.
The decision upset some senior scientists, who had expected both uses of gene editing to gain traction. They fear the decision could prevent the creation of hardier, healthier herds and herds. Animal welfare however, groups welcomed the move.
Gene editing involves making minor changes to plant or animal DNA to create new strains or breeds. The technology has replaced the techniques of genetic modification (GM), which involves 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 it was not passed before the general election.
The agriculture minister, Daniel Zeichner, has since announced that the current government will accept that secondary legislation, but only for plants and the food and feed derived from them. “No decision has been made on the submission of legislation enabling the Precision Breeding Act for animals,” a spokesperson for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said last week.
Scientists working on animal diseases have been critical of this lack of action. “It 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 such as gene editing to improve the lives of animals.”
Prof Helen Sang from 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 bird flu virus detected in both dairy cattle and their milk in the US, the importance of pursuing all potential solutions as soon as possible, including precision breeding, cannot be overemphasized,” she wrote in a letter to environment ministers.
However, Penny Hawkins, head of the RSPCA, welcomed the decision to indefinitely postpone the introduction of animals that have not been rescued. Animals in Science Department. “Each year around 12% of animal food is wasted. It is therefore completely unethical to push animal productivity even further when so much is already being thrown away,” she said.
Hawkins added that there is an argument to support the use of gene editing to create species better able to resist disease. “In most cases, however, diseases are preventable through good housing, husbandry and care and veterinary 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 secured and returned to conditions where they can be properly monitored?”
Other scientists point out that the UK is one of the world’s leaders in gene editing of animal breeds and related technologies. If British researchers are prevented from developing their research, there is a real risk that their expertise will wither and the country will lose investment and scientific talent.
to newsletter promotion
“We’re creating the opportunities to improve animal health and welfare, reduce the burden of disease, but we’re not creating the opportunity to actually manifest that in the UK – unlike many other countries, such as the US and Brazil,” said Hammond added.
“I can see a situation where we export our knowledge but end up having to import the products created from that knowledge.”
Prof Johnathan Napier, the science director at Rothamsted Research in Hertforshire, said that the government’s enthusiasm for plants over animals could be explained – at least in part – by the fact that there may be many more gene-edited crops in the pipeline than gene- edited crops. animals. “On the other hand, if you have a technology that can reduce the susceptibility of farm animals to some pretty nasty diseases, why not use it?” he added.
