Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict has demonstrated the fragility and
vulnerability of global and European food supply chains.
Around the world, governments in leading agricultural-producing
countries are now catching up with the United States, both to
better legislate gene-edited (GE) products, as well as
differentiate them from the older Genetically Modified Organism
(GMO) technology, and its negative connotations to some consumers,
commentators, farmers, retailers, politicians and lawmakers.
This is both impacting and influencing government policy, and
the in turn the regulatory landscape in various countries is
changing, as well as how companies and new technology are
developing and evolving in response for future growth
opportunities.
Public opinion
Although almost three decades have passed since genetically
modified crops (so-called 'GMOs') were widely commercialized,
vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in
agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their
safety and utility.
A 2022 study published in GM Crops & Food analyses
the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on
social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at
103,084 online and print articles published in English-language
media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts.
To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive survey of the
shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue
during this time period. While the volume of traditional media
coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this
was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media
posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more
positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but
that gap disappeared in 2020.
Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing
favourability, with the positive trend especially robust in social
media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined
with a strong trend toward greater favourability, may indicate a
drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population
even while the volume of coverage in traditional media
increased.
Overall, these results suggest that both social and traditional
media may be moving toward a more favourable and less polarized
conversation on agbiotech and gene-edited crops and applications
overall.
Europe
The European Commission has recently called for increased
domestic plantings of grains and oilseeds this year, which will
necessitate higher supplies of both conventional and biological
crop protection products, as well as other key inputs such as
gene-edited seeds, fertilizers, biofertilizers, and insect
pheromones for integrated pest management (IPM) methods.
The European Commission recently reaffirmed its conviction that
New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) - can contribute to the objectives of
European Union (EU) strategies, notably the European Green Deal and
the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. This is in turn
influencing policy in France and other member states, as well as
the UK and Switzerland, which both mirror EU policies closely.
Traditionally, the EU has adopted legislation based upon the
more cautious precautionary principle, which it argues better
protects consumers and farmers who don't want GM technologies,
while the US has called for more science-based and permissive
policies on allowing new crop technologies. But this situation
appears to be changing for the better in the EU, according to new
public opinion research.
In 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that all
organisms produced by biotechnology were to be considered GMOs and
to be regulated as such, but change is in the air, likely to be
accelerated by the current food security crisis and rising
commodity prices and crop shortages, as a result of wider impacts
of the Russia/Ukraine conflict.
The UK Houses of Parliament in March 2022 approved draft
regulations to simplify the approval process for research trials on
plants produced through new breeding techniques (NBTs). The Bill
aligns NBTs such as gene-editing with plants produced through
traditional breeding rather than the previous alignment with
genetically modified plant technology.
Parliament's upper chamber, the House of Lords, approved the
Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations
Bill 2022. That followed assent from the lower chamber earlier this
month. It covers only England, and not the devolved province of
Northern Ireland and countries, Scotland and Wales. Northern
Ireland remains under European Single Market rules.
The Bill removes the need to submit a risk assessment and seek
consent from the Secretary of State before researchers could
release, for non-marketing purposes, GM plants that could have been
produced by traditional breeding. Those wanting to release GMOs
into the environment have to carry out such assessments, as well as
obtain ministerial consent.
In the case of NBTs, that requirement has been replaced by the
need to give a notice to the Secretary of State with certain
prescribed information.
UK
The UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
as competent authority ran a public consultation from January to
March 2021 and received 6,440 consultation responses. The
consultation received no scientific evidence indicating that
gene-edited organisms should be regulated as GMOs.
The new regulations amend the Genetically Modified Organisms
(Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002, taking effect in April 2022.
However, England has devolved powers on agriculture and farming
policy and spending, which are different from Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland, where policy is generally much more sceptical and
cautious from legislators on GM and GE crop cultivation.
Scientists must give notice to DEFRA at least 20 days before the
day of release itself. This means genome edited seeds could be in
the ground as early as May 2022.
The British Society of Plant Breeders has welcomed the
development, noting that England has aligned itself with Australia,
Japan, and the US, in allowing trials of gene edited plants. The
Society's chief executive officer, Sam Brooke, commented: "By
enabling the trialling of new genetic technologies, we will see a
greater opportunity for all sizes of organisation to access these
important advances in plant breeding technology." She hopes that
the approvals will prove a catalyst for the sector to grow and
support plant breeders to improve disease resistance. Rapporteur
for the legislation in the Lords, Lord Benyon, said that uptake of
field trials has been "low", with estimates suggesting that "no
more than two" field trials for gene-edited plants currently happen
in England each year.
England's and the rest of the UK's regulations on NBTs were
covered by a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in 2018 that
all organisms produced by biotechnology were to be considered GMOs
and to be regulated as such. Post-Brexit, the UK has left the
jurisdiction of the ECJ. The UK government's view is that where
genetic alterations and combinations are of the type that are
selected for traditional breeding, and where no transgene is
introduced, the environmental release of these plants should not be
regulated in the same way as the environmental release of GMOs.
Parliament has backed that view.
Switzerland
In December 2021, the Swiss Council of States added an exemption
covering gene editing technology to its approval for an extension
to the national moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops. The
exemption would cover plants that are grown with "gene-editing
without the incorporation of foreign genetic material" from an
extension. That amendment to a moratorium extension on GM crops has
gone back to Parliament.
The Swiss council of states has accepted a compromise proposal
to its proposed exemption covering gene-editing technology from an
extension to the national moratorium on the cultivation of
genetically modified crops. The move should allow the moratorium on
GM and gene-edited crops to be extended again until the end of
2025, but with a plan to separate gene editing from GM crops within
the period. The council of states represents the nation's
cantons.
Also in 2021, the Swiss Parliament's "grand chamber" voted to
extend the moratorium on commercialisation of GM crops - including
of gene-edited crops - by another four years. The last moratorium
was due to end at the close of last year. However, the council of
states voted narrowly in December to exempt gene editing from an
extension to the GM moratorium.
The Swiss Parliament and the National Council resisted the
counter measure, leading to a compromise proposal. Earlier this
month, the Council of States approved that compromise proposal from
the Parliamentary Commission for Economy, Education and Culture
(WBK-N). The proposal is that by mid-2024, the Federal Council
would present approval rules on how "GMOs without transgenic
genetic material" could be exempted from the moratorium. The
Federal Council is an advisory body elected by MPs.
A new vote of Parliament is required to accept the compromise
position and regulate a new moratorium. The government has run an
effective moratorium since the start of the year, promising not to
approve any licence applications on GM or gene-edited crop pilot
projects.
The Swiss Parliament's news service reported that the Federal
Council must present a "risk-based approval regulation" on
exempting gene editing technology by mid-2024. However, the
technologies must "have added value for agriculture, the
environment and consumers compared to conventional breeding
methods", according to the WBK-N compromise text.
There are however political divisions. Council of States member
Hannes Germann of the conservative People's Party said: "The
National Council is taking a big step towards our solution". Andrea
Gmür-Schönenberger MP of the centre-right Mitte party was also
supportive and welcomed the solution as "a pragmatic middle ground
that research and the Council of States could live with". She adds
that it is "high time to give these new methods a chance".
Environment Minister Simonetta Sommaruga also found the solution
acceptable. "Now there is enough time to develop the basis for good
decisions." Green Party MPs however sought a delay until the
conclusion of reports on the subject planned by the state
government for the current year and new regulations planned by the
EU for dealing with new breeding technologies (NBTs) before
committing.
If you are interested in more details of our reports on
Gene-Editing, please contact Crop Science
special reports publisher Dr Alan Bullion via email at alan.bullion@s&pglobal.com
or call 07766 968820.
Posted 10 May 2022 by Alan Bullion, Director of Special Reports & Projects, Agribusiness, S&P Global Commodity Insights
This article was published by S&P Global Commodity Insights and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.