Saturday, August 31, 2024

“Gene-Edited” vs “Genetically Modified” – What’s the difference?

Aug 30, 2024

“Gene-Edited” vs “Genetically Modified” – What’s the difference?

Kit Knightly

Have you heard? Gene-edited crops and livestock are here to solve all our problems!

Yes, everything from pandemics to the cost of living crisis to climate change is about to get so much better.

Isn’t that a relief?

Five days ago, the WaPo reported that “gene-editors” were:

working to genetically engineer the cow microbiome — and in the process, eliminate methane emissions.

Three weeks earlier the same outlet reported on gene-edited trees for making paper.

In the UK we can expect the first gene-edited wheat to be harvested this year. In the US, gene-edited salad leaves aren’t far behind.

Japan approved “super-tomatoes” that can “lower your blood pressure” years ago now.

Genetically edited potatoes are being created in South America. Wheat in Egypt. Cotton and maize in Ethiopia.

Back in 2022, I reported that gene-edited foods were already being sold to the public as “cheaper”, “more nutritious” and “preventing future pandemics”.

Two weeks ago The Japan Times declared:

“It’s time to embrace a new era of gene-edited food

Now, in case you’re concerned, let me assure you they are talking about gene-edited food, which is great, NOT genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which we all know are a bad thing.

But what’s the actual difference?

It’s hard to tell sometimes, not least because the MSM still tend to use the terms interchangeably (for example the above Japan Times article uses “gene-edited” in the headline, but “GMOs” in the sub-head).

Let’s check the UK government’s handy DEFRA fact sheet from 2021 for some clarification [emphasis added]:

Gene editing should not be confused with genetic modification (known as GM). Genetically modified organisms are those where DNA from a different species has been introduced into another. Gene edited organisms generally do not contain DNA from different species, they contain changes that could be made more slowly using traditional breeding methods.

…did you spot the super special loophole word?

Let’s zoom in for a closer look.

Gene edited organisms GENERALLY do not contain DNA from different species

Hmmm. What an odd place to insert the word “generally”. A cynical person might say its presence renders the entire sentence meaningless.

Nevermind, just rest assured that there definitely is a difference, even if that difference happens to be largely regulatory.

Again, from the DEFRA fact sheet:

At the moment, following a European Court of Justice ruling in 2018, gene editing is regulated in the same way as genetic modification. The UK Government is consulting on changing these rules in England, allowing gene editing research to be used to produce beneficial crops and livestock

Ah, interesting…..

Would it surprise you to learn that the UK government has now changed those rules, via the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023.

As of now the previous regulation on GM organisms no longer applies to “genetically edited” organisms.

The Act itself eschews “Genetically Edited” in favour of “Precision bred” (probably because it sounds more natural), and defines a “precision bred” organism as follows:

(2)For the purposes of this Act an organism [animal or plant] is “precision bred” if—

(a)any feature of its genome results from the application of modern biotechnology,

(b)every feature of its genome that results from the application of modern biotechnology is stable,

(c)every feature of its genome that results from the application of modern biotechnology could have resulted from traditional processes,
whether or not in conjunction with selection techniques, alone, and

(d)its genome does not contain any feature that results from the application of any artificial modification technique other than modern
biotechnology.

…which still seems quite vague.

Certainly, the potential is there for the difference between “gene-edited” (GE) and “genetically modified” (GM) to become largely semantic.

I noted in my previous piece that the pro-gene editing PR campaign was global. And the UK’s push for de-regulation is likewise mirrored worldwide – something which is always noteworthy in and of itself.

In February of this year, the European Union voted to “ease regulation of gene-edited crops”.

Three weeks ago, the US-based Genetic Literacy Project headlined “In hopes to cut pesticide use Switzerland edges closer to legalizing crop gene editing”

Just a few days ago, it was reported that ‘Food Standards Australia New Zealand’ (FSANZ) would be using a “new definition” of genetically modified organisms that excluded gene-edited crops.

All this talk of de-regulating and “new definitions” should make everyone raise an eyebrow. Clearly, the potential is there for the mother of all loopholes.

The news is no better on the other side of the New Iron Curtain.

Russia has always been the nation most vocally against GMOs, banning their import, cultivation and distribution on Russian soil. This has been a source of much hope to those investing in the idea that Russia, and BRICS nations in general, are standing against the incipient dystopia unfolding in the West.

Sadly, however, Russia has been investing billions of rubles in “gene editing” since 2019.

China is going the same way. In May 2023 it was reported that:

After decades of bans, China is beginning to plant gene-edited crops

Exactly a year later, China officially approved gene-edited wheat for human consumption.

So, it looks like gene-edited crops are on the menu, no matter who wins the much-anticipated WWIII.

Governments and Big Farmer companies all over the world are hailing the rise of brand new totally brilliant “genetic editing” technology, leaving the regulations on stupid old-fashioned “genetic modification” guarding an empty room.

This is simply the way of the world in the post-Covid, post-truth age – where the powers-that-be reframe, redefine and reinterpret words as they deem necessary. Facts are temporary. Reality malleable. Edit wikipedia and you’ve changed history, if you ever need to you can just change it back.

So far we’ve been talking through the alleged differences between “gene-edited and “genetically modified”, maybe we should take a moment to discuss some similarities.

For example, both GE and GMO seeds and crops could be patented, handing huge amounts of power to a few international biotech giants to hold sway over seed supply, and therefore food supply.

As Politico reports:

“Patent war looms over Europe’s future supercrops – New rules on gene-edited seeds could pave way for half a dozen big suppliers to strengthen their market domination.

Likewise, genetically edited crops could be subject to Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) or “terminator seeds”, meaning they cannot reproduce naturally. This, it is argued, is necessary to protect intellectual property and prevent cross-breeding with wild or non-GM species.

Maybe that argument has some merit, but the real-world impact of sterile crops would be farmers entirely dependent on those same biotech giants for seeds every planting season.

So, let’s return to our opening question: What is the difference between “genetically modified” and “gene-edited”?

The answer is potentially quite simple.

“Genetically modified organisms” are a relatively new and largely experimental technology with the power to hand control of the food supply to a handful of biotech firms and which are subject to extensive legal regulation.

“Gene-edited foods” are a relatively new and largely experimental technology with the power to hand control of the food supply to a handful of biotech firms…and which are NOT subject to extensive legal regulation.