England’s footballers were regularly lauded for their ‘resilience’ en route to the final of the recent men’s Euros. So much so that use of the word became a cliché.
What does it even mean? According to the Football Association, resilient teams “have the ability to maintain a consistent level of high performance in the face of change, adversity and stress”.
Resilience is therefore a key psychological aspect of success in sport. It’s also a key trait in nature. Stress-resistant crops are better equipped to withstand various environmental challenges that can adversely affect their growth and yield.
A rising population, climate change and water stress are testing the resilience of UK crops. Wheat yields are predicted to fall 15% due to record rainfall in recent months. The NFU has warned a crisis is building. Winters in the UK will become wetter, and summers drier.
There is a solution. Gene editing can significantly enhance the resilience of crops to rainfall variability and other climate-related stresses. This technology, particularly through methods like CRISPR-Cas9, offers the potential for more rapid, precise, and cost-effective crop improvement to address various agricultural challenges, from food security and nutrition to environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation.
This is not genetic modification or GM. CRISPR enables these precise genetic modifications without the need to introduce DNA from other species.
Food security in supermarkets
But regulation has so far failed to keep pace with innovation. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act did pass into law under the previous government. This aims to create a regulatory framework for precision-bred plants and animals.
The new government is considering how to take this regulatory framework forward but has not provided a timescale on when any enabling legislation will be put into practice through secondary regulations.
Defra has approved the research field trials of more than 10 GE crops in England, with these being predominantly carried out at Rothamsted Research and the John Innes Centre. But because the regulatory framework for how they will be approved is yet to be established, no companies have yet submitted gene-edited products to the FSA.
Scientists like Professor Johnathan Napier from Rothamsted demand clarity from the new government regarding policy continuity to unlock the potential economic and environmental benefits of new precision breeding techniques.
Food security is increasingly recognised as a significant business risk for supermarkets. But retailers are failing to show any enthusiasm for gene-edited foods – enthusiasm which could help steer the upcoming regulatory framework.
A lack of engagement from retailers was first revealed in 2022. Last week, I asked the UK’s 10 biggest supermarkets for their policy regarding stocking gene-edited food.
The Co-op’s gene-edited food policy, first announced in 2021 when it became the first UK supermarket to take such a stance, states it will not stock gene-edited foods. It is understood the retailer is not opposed to genetic editing technology, where there may be benefits both from a health and sustainability perspective and it will review its position to make sure it reflects emerging evidence.
How to achieve higher-yielding crops
Waitrose said it would “continue to monitor the potential for global health and sustainability benefits of this technology. We will engage with the government as science and regulation develops.”
The BRC was also approached for comment. Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability, said: “There are merits in further exploring the use of precision breeding. We are supportive of the technology and its potential to make a contribution to increased sustainability and security of food supply chains. However, any policy has to be developed in the context of consumer acceptability, safety, and the wider financial implications for our UK farmer suppliers.”
Supermarkets have been accused of using consumer attitudes as a cover for their indecision. It’s true consumers have historically viewed GM foods at least with scepticism. Interestingly, according to Mintel research last year, younger Europeans aged 16 to 24 seem more supportive than their older peers to GM foods, thanks to the possible health and environmental benefits. But, to reiterate, we’re not talking about GM. UK regulators make a clear distinction between GE and GM. Consumers are mainly just confused.
In view of the new government, supermarkets have a golden opportunity to educate shoppers on the benefits of gene editing and in doing so future-proof their own supply chains.
And the scientific consensus would be with them. “The evidence is overwhelming that the products of these technologies pose no greater risks than their conventionally bred counterparts,” Napier said, “and yet they can greatly accelerate the development of more climate resilient, higher-yielding crops requiring fewer pesticide and fertiliser inputs, and with improved quality and nutrition.”
Supermarkets: it’s time to be proactive. Innovation should be championed. Once it is, perhaps we will only have football to worry about.
No comments yet