In response to criticism of proposed changes to our GM settings, scientist Revel Drummond says we should discuss the issue of regulatory change from a position of educated debate, not fear-mongering.
New technologies often get pushback from sectors of society. In the 19th century people feared the unknown effects on the body from the speed of train travel. Public health technologies such as vaccination and fluoridation have been the subject of counter-technological rhetoric and misinformation. Those peddling such messages frequently purport to be an “independent voice” and the only ones with the answers. Gene technologies have been no different. The anti-science strategies used are familiar but still, unfortunately, effective.
I think Aotearoa New Zealand should discuss the issue of regulatory change from a position of educated debate, not fear-mongering. To aid the discussion, here are some facts, all readily verifiable (not from my work, but from many, many other scientists).
We have genetically modified our food for millennia
Humanity has been altering our food plants and animals for at least the last 10,000 years. We have artificially selected the plants that suit our needs and spread that seed. This selective pressure altered genomes at broad scale – good variants (mutations) were spread quickly, altering the genetic landscape of many species. The domestication of wheat, maize and rice created plants with genomes far removed from the original wild plants. More recently we deliberately selected for useful variants, producing plants like pinot gris from pinot noir and royal gala apples from gala, but this was slow and relied on random chance creating the necessary changes to the DNA.
And it didn’t just happen in plants – just look at the difference between a chihuahua and a wolf, or a buffalo and a dairy cow.
When we discovered in the 1950s that DNA was the source of the instructions for how each plant or animal was made, new avenues to producing variants opened up. We induced many mutations very quickly (but randomly) and the plants were screened for the “best” ones, in a manner similar to what our ancestors did, but now with more knowledge and purpose. Ruby grapefruit and some nashi pears came into being this way, and the list goes far beyond these.
Not all genetic modification is the same
What you might generally think of as genetic modification has, until recently, involved adding DNA from an external source – whether from the same species or a completely different organism. However, the advent of more modern gene technologies, such as gene editing, has fine-tuned the process so we can now make precise changes to the existing DNA of an organism, potentially without adding anything new.
Gene editing, ie changing a single letter in the DNA code out of 372 million letters (in the case of papaya) or 14.5 billion letters (in the case of wheat) is clearly different from adding several thousand letters in the form of a new gene from a different species. Those opposed to genetic modification have chosen to consider these the same, but science does not.
Different types of change and different applications of the technology have different risks. The change of one DNA letter to another or the loss and addition of small pieces of DNA is a very common and natural occurrence from parents to progeny of any species (including humans). The risks are well quantified, so we don’t subject every new seedling or kitten to rigorous genetic screening before it’s allowed into the world. Gene editing is capable of making these exact sorts of changes. A mutation in the DNA sequence is chemically identical whether caused by, for example, a UV ray, or by gene editing – there is no way to tell which method caused it. In New Zealand, the first of these is subject to no regulation, the second to stringent risk and safety assessment and public consultation before contained trials. Recognising that there are substantive differences in risk, many countries have chosen to regulate GMOs and gene-edited organisms differently.
Modern biotechnology is difficult, just not as difficult as it once was
People are currently imagining some weird and wonderful uses of modern biotechnology. But despite having created more genetically modified organisms than you’ve had hot lunches, I still find it quite a difficult process. I have worked for nearly 20 years in a high-complexity molecular biology laboratory with the resources of a scientific research institute with more than 1,000 employees. Sure, bacteria are pretty easy to modify, mostly consisting of one cell with one set of DNA to modify, but plants are fairly hard, and I don’t have any ability to genetically modify an animal at all. So, hearing that someone imagines I will shortly be spraying gene-editing enzymes on fields of crops and making GMOs makes me shake my head in disbelief. This is impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Under the proposed new regulations, schools will be able to teach the basics of modern biotech. In simple science laboratories the students may be able to make a genetically modified bacteria, for example, that glows green when under UV light or that comes in four shades of orange/red. However, genetically modifying plants and animals requires expertise, time and resources not available to any school or garage enthusiast.
We are missing out
The use of gene technology in agriculture has one of the fastest uptakes of any technology. In the countries that have embraced the tool, the adoption is now at greater than 90% for the most popular crops. But that has led to it being a victim of its own success. Uptake by farmers was far faster than consumers were comfortable with. The benefits were significant, but they were also only felt by the farmers.
Our farmers have missed out, but what about consumers? It’s fair to say that the development of consumer-focused products has lagged behind, but that is changing. The examples of the tomato that helps with hypertension and the pink pineapple with its healthy antioxidants are only the tip of the iceberg. Watch this space.
Our exporters will also miss out. Soon we will have to compete with apples that don’t go brown and need fewer pesticides during the growing season. New Zealand’s reputation for growing the best food with the least environmental impact is at risk from outdated production methods, some of which could be improved by gene technology. Tying one hand behind our back will make staying relevant increasingly more difficult.
Precision fermentation technologies is another area where we could be a world leader but our current regulations are holding us back. There has been some great writing on this topic from New Zealanders describing the development of everything from bioplastics to cow-less dairy products and lab-grown meat.
The United States has both the largest organics sector and the largest gene technology agricultural sector in the world. The use is not all or nothing. Careful regulation and stewardship means that these production systems co-exist and both make excellent returns in the market by providing the consumer with the benefits that they demand. This could easily be win-win if we do it right.
New Zealand will still have stringent regulations for the use of GM
The new regulator for gene technology in New Zealand will be closely based on the Australian model. However, we will learn from their experience to develop an even better system with the unique characteristics of Aotearoa. The Royal Society Te Apārangi has already done an extensive analysis on why this is necessary.
Australia, like many other countries (US, UK, Japan, Argentina, China, Philippines, India, Canada, and soon the EU) has taken the view that not all genetic modification is equal and regulates simple gene editing differently. But their system is unable to cope with some of the most modern forms of gene editing technology and lacks the ability to tease apart some of the more nuanced outcomes. Our system could be less prescriptive and more flexible and future-proof, while still providing excellent protection for the people and environment of Aotearoa.