Cymraeg Between 7 January and 17 March 2021, the UK Government is hosting an online consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies and, notably, the technique of gene editing.
A lot can be said about the consultation and the way it is being conducted, as pointed out by other organisations like BeyondGM. The Westminster government seems to have made up its mind about the benefits of genetic technologies, although it provides no supporting evidence. Consultations are also supposed to be easy to understand and easy to answer. Yet, this one is very technical and the language that has been used is unnecessarily complicated and may discourage a lot of people from responding. The Landworkers’ Alliance has submitted a full response to the consultation that can be found here.
We aim to help you understand the online consultation and the stock answers below can be used as a template to respond to the questions. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact Miranda Geelhoed, Scotland Policy and Campaigns Coordinator: miranda.geelhoed@staging.landworkersalliance.org.uk.
We have also put together a short Q&A to help you understand the consultation.
A word on these ‘stock answers’
The ‘stock answers’ below say that we disagree that the problems in our food system will be solved by a techno-fix such as gene-editing. Rather, we are concerned that gene-editing will further reduce biodiversity, increase reliance on petro-chemical inputs and disempower farmers. Much of the political objective of this ‘consultation’ is to advance the idea that gene-edited crops are not GMOs, and therefore that they should not be labeled and regulated. We disagree with this and say that gene-edited crops and livestock are GMOs and therefore, if they are developed at all, should definitely be regulated.
Our answers also aim to go beyond the technical debate to make a more systemic critique of bioengineering as a threat to food sovereignty. Our action page also contains a letter to MPs, within which we put across a broader critique and also criticise the biased framing of this consultation.
How to respond to the consultation
The consultation consists of three parts. Section 1 has a few questions about you as respondent to the consultation. Section 2 looks at gene-editing and Section 3 looks at the regulations from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) more broadly (stock answers to Setions 2 and 3 below).
Obviously you are free to word your own responses, and, ultimately, this would be preferable. However, we also acknowledge that you are all very busy and Defra have deliberately made the consultation inaccessible, so you might prefer to copy and paste the stock answers listed below.
How to respond:
- The easiest way to submit your response is through the online Citizen Space portal. A Pdf copy of your response will be sent to your email address.
- You can also respond by email in your own words or using our template answers below. Emails should be sent to: consultationreply@defra.gov.uk with the subject line ‘Consultation on the Regulation of Genetic Technologies’. It should be clear from your email that you are aiming to respond to the consultation and you will need to state whether your submission should be kept confidential or not and whether it can be published on the website.
- You can post your response to: Consultation Coordinator, Defra, 2nd Floor, Foss House, Kings Pool, 1-2 Peasholme Green, York, YO1 7PX.
The deadline of the consultation is Wednesday 17 March 2021.
Stock answers
Answers 1-9, are just personal details. The bigger questions begin at Section 2, Question 10:
Question 10. Currently, organisms developed using genetic technologies such as GE are regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) even if their genetic change(s) could have been produced through traditional breeding.
Do you agree with this?
Yes – they should continue to be regulated as a GMO
Please explain your answer, providing specific evidence where appropriate. This may include suggestions for an alternative regulatory approach.
I do not believe that the products of genetic editing and traditional breeding can be compared. Gene-editing is an artificial laboratory-based procedure which produces novel GMOs. This was confirmed by the ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2018. Conventional breeding is different from genetic engineering because it uses sexual reproduction rather than lab-based techniques to make changes.
I support the regulation of gene editing techniques because the use of these techniques like other novel technologies can bring intended and unintended changes and can have targeted as well as ‘off-target’ effects. Regulation provides an essential safety net to protect against the environmental and health risks of new technologies. It also allows for the traceability and labeling of gene-edited products, so that I, as a farmer can guarantee that my products are GM-free and my customers can vote with their wallet to keep supporting the sort of sustainable food production that they want to see on their plates.
I am also concerned that deregulation of gene editing techniques will impact on access to markets, notably the EU market. If England deregulates certain types of GMOs, it is likely to lose access to the EU market – not only for GM products but on a much wider scale due to a lack of traceability and risks of contamination.
Deregulation in England will also impact on the rest of the UK. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have taken a more prudent approach on GMOs. Yet, they will face risks of contamination in border areas and may be forced under the Internal Market Act to sell unchecked and unlabelled GM foods.
Question 11. Do organisms produced by GE or other genetic technologies pose a similar, lesser or greater risk of harm to human health or the environment compared with their traditionally bred counterparts as a result of how they were produced?
Answer: [Greater]
Please provide evidence to support your response including details of the genetic technology, the specific risks and why they do or do not differ. Please also state which applications/areas your answer relates to (for example: does it apply to the cultivation of crop plants, breeding of farmed animals, human food, animal feed, human and veterinary medicines, other applications/ areas).
Open response
Traditional breeding has a history of safe use stretching back millennia, whereas no genetic engineering technique has such a history. While the industrial lobby promotes gene editing techniques, many scientists have stated that there are risks involved. In 2017, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) published a statement that confirmed the importance of process-based regulation for new genetic technologies to protect against unpredicted risks.
The 2018 judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union also found that gene editing techniques pose environmental and health risks similar to those GMOs produced through transgenesis and should therefore be regulated in a similar way. Whilst the UK may no longer be part of the EU, it still has obligations under international law in relation to GMOs.
Question 12. Are there any non-safety issues to consider (e.g. impacts on trade, consumer choice, intellectual property, regulatory, animal welfare or others), if organisms produced by GE or other genetic technologies, which could have been produced naturally or through traditional breeding methods, were not regulated as GMOs?
Answer: Yes
Please provide evidence to support your response and expand on what these non-safety issues are.
A greater emphasis on genetic technologies is likely to exacerbate the problems of our food system, not solve them. I support a food system within which farmers work together with nature and within which people are empowered to decide on what they eat, to tackle the problems of our time.
A non-exhaustive list of critical concerns is as follows:
- Freedom of choice for consumers
Exempting gene-edited GMOs from regulation means that consumers will have no way of knowing if the food they buy contains GMOs. Food labelling laws have been recognised as a way to protect the human right of individual consumers to adequate food. Labelling is a legitimate, democratic action that enables choice and that is feared by those who prefer to hide information on what people grow and eat.
- Farmers’ rights to save seed
Bioengineering techniques like gene-editing are reliant on patent law, which infringe on farmers rights to save seed. Within the EU, 3500 patents on life had already been granted by 2018 and most of those are for the products of genetic engineering. Patenting life in this way infringes farmers’ rights to breed and save seed, and puts them at risk of legal action if GMOs spread into their fields. It is ironic that the biotech industry is pushing for gene edited GMOs to be exempted from regulations, whilst it is itself reliant on intellectual property law to protect its ‘inventions’ against ‘infringements’.
- Market concentration
The patent model that is at the heart of the development of GMOs encourages concentration of the seed market. Globally, the seed market is already dominated by only four firms which control more than 60% of markets. In the European Union, in 2013, the five largest companies controlled over 95% of the vegetable seed market. Many of these companies also hold significant market shares in other parts of the agri-food chain, notably for agro chemicals. Concentration in the seed market has led to the disappearance of most small-and medium-sized seed companies, which makes farmers dependent on a handful of suppliers. This dependency has led to significant increases in seed prices.
It has also reinforced the tendency of the industry to focus on a limited number of profitable crops and gene-edited seeds entering the market will drive concentration still further. By contrast, what is needed is a proliferation of open pollinated seed varieties, small seed firms and on-farm seed saving.
- Producers’ right to choose
The markets of small scale, organic and agroecological farmers are threatened by unregulated GMOs in the food chain. When GMOs are not traced or labelled, farmers may unintentionally use gene edited genetic material. This can impact on their ability to sell under GM-free or organic labels, for which they will have made significant investments.
- Access to foreign markets
Unregulated GMOs in the UK food chain will restrict our access to EU markets, and therefore drive exporters to sell into other markets such as the USA and Canada. These markets are dominated by larger and more industrialised producers, which will in turn drive the development of such practices here in the UK. Imports from these countries will probably be cheaper and produced to lower farming standards, which could under-cut locally produced food in the UK also. The UK is already reliant on imports for 40% of its food, we do not want to further undermine domestic self- sufficiency.
- A threat to devolution
The devolved nations have a prudent historical record on GMOs compared to England, and their rights to maintain a GMO-free food chain must be respected. The ‘Internal Market Act’ will most likely mean that the devolved nations will be able to restrict the cultivation of GMOs on their territories, but that they will not be able to stop gene-edited products being imported from England. It could also stop Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from imposing labelling requirements on products imported from England.
The potential impacts on farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are thus significant: (1) they face contamination threats – particularly in border regions; (2) they face competition from potentially cheaper, unlabelled GM products; and (3) they may see restrictions for their products on access to foreign markets and, notably, the EU, if GM products are not traced and labelled within the UK market and it is, therefore, hard if not impossible to guarantee the organic or GM-free status of products exported from any part of the UK.
- Increasing use of agro-chemical inputs
Part of the ‘sales-pitch’ of gene-editing is that it will help reduce the use of biocides. This is contrary to the evidence. The role of most gene-edited crops, like other GMOs is to provide herbicide-resistance which increases use of chemicals. The chemicals in question are most often produced by the same companies behind the biotechnological invention, ‘round-up ready’ corn being the most widely grown GMO globally.
- Animal welfare
Gene editing often involves cloning, which can inflict severe or lasting pain on animals, violates their integrity and reduces them to a mere instrument or tool. Errors can occur due to unintended consequences. It raises many ethical questions which should be carefully considered.
- Gene editing is a false solution
I promote a food system founded on the principles of food sovereignty, and agroecological farming techniques. This means prioritising farmers’ labour and knowledge over capital inputs, technology and chemicals. It also emphasises a shift towards open pollinated seed varieties and recognises biodiversity as the basis of agricultural resilience. A reorientation towards local markets and a level of state intervention in the market is also key. Bioengineering steers us away from this positive model of a better food system into one increasingly dominated by powerful market players at the expense of biodiversity, farmers autonomy, and the public’s right to healthy food for all.
Question 13. What criteria should be used to determine whether an organism produced by gene editing or another genetic technology, could have been produced by traditional breeding or not?
Please provide evidence to support your response.
I do not believe that criteria should be developed to determine whether gene edited GMOs could have been developed by traditional breeding. I believe in process-based regulations to protect against the risks of new and experimental technologies like gene editing, and the need for a precautionary approach.
I believe that the government is deliberately downplaying the nature of gene-editing by using flawed comparisons with traditional breeding. I see the products of gene-editing as GMOs, in line with the 2018 ruling of the EU court of Justice. Both pose dangers to organic and agroecological farming, due to potential impacts on biodiversity, risks of cross-contamination and pressures on local and organic markets.
Section 3 – Part 2: Questions on broad reform of legislation governing organisms produced using genetic technologies.
This part of the consultation is designed to start the process of evidence gathering to inform how Defra should reform its approach to regulating novel organisms in the longer term.
There are two questions that focus on areas where views and evidence would be welcome.
These questions do not apply to the use of genetic technologies in contained use conditions (e.g. in laboratories) or to the use of genetic technologies in humans (e.g. gene editing of human embryos).
Question 14. There are a number of existing, non-GM regulations that control the use of organisms and/or products derived from them. The GMO legislation applies additional controls when the organism or product has been developed using particular technologies.
Do you think existing, non-GM legislation is sufficient to deal with all organisms irrespective of the way that they were produced or is additional legislation needed? Please indicate in the table whether, yes, the existing non-GMO legislation is sufficient, or no, existing non GMO legislation is insufficient and additional governance measures (regulatory or nonregulatory) are needed.
Please answer Y/N for each of the following sectors/activities:
Sector / activity Yes (sufficient governance) – No (insufficient governance)
- a) cultivation of crop plants – NO
- b) breeding farmed animals – NO
- c) human food – NO
- d) animal feed – NO
- e) human and veterinary medicines – NO
- f) other sectors/activities
Please provide evidence to support your response
See question 15.
Question 15. Where you have answered no (existing, non-GMO legislation is insufficient to deal with organisms produced by genetic technologies), please describe what additional regulatory or non-regulatory measures you think are required to address this insufficiency, including any changes you think need to be made to existing non-GMO legislation. Please explain how any additional measures you identify should be triggered (for example: novelty, risk, other factors).
Non-GMO regulation is insufficient because gene-edited crops and livestock constitute GMOs, and should be regulated as such. I am in favour of process-based regulations on GMOs with requirements for risk assessment and management, monitoring, traceability and labelling. Trying to use non-GMO regulation would be piecemeal and could leave gaps in legal protection.
The government should use this opportunity to identify and address shortcomings in current GMO legislation. In particular, the government should learn from experience in the EU to limit the undue influence of the biotech industry in the regulatory processes (Regulation 2019/1381).
Current regulations also focus too much on the potential safety risks and disregard other social factors. Knowledge from scientific experts are prioritised over the knowledge of farmers and society at large, which narrows the debate on bioengineering. This revision in current regulation provides an opportunity to re-evaluate this and to put land workers and the public at the heart of the debate.
