solutions exist, but farmers in the UK, US, and elsewhere are unable to use them.


Do you think consumers are ready for genome editing? There is no single type of consumer; consumers have a variety of reasons for making purchasing decisions. Some are looking for food production using less antibiotics or pesticides. Some are looking for ways to support small farmers. Some are concerned about the climate challenges that farmers face. Some are looking for products with healthier nutritional profiles. Genome editing has the potential to help provide such choices and thus expand options for consumers and farmers.


the regulatory landscape globally. Some countries in Latin Amer- ica are taking an approach that, if other countries adopt it, pro- vides the potential to really change the landscape for agricultural applications of genome editing and could allow these tech- niques to be used as a breeding tool that could be accessible in all countries. This would allow locally produced solutions to re- gional agricultural challenges to reach farmers and consumers. In an ideal world, publicly-funded, low-risk research solutions using genome editing could reach farmers without an expensive and lengthy regulatory process. Breeders in Kenya and India, for ex- ample, would then be able to edit crops and livestock adapted to their region to address the problems that their farmers face. We face serious agricultural challenges for which genome editing could help provide viable solutions. For example, citrus greening is seriously damaging the citrus industry in Florida, Avian Influ- enza remains a concern, and now the world faces the threat of African Swine Fever, which has killed millions of pigs globally, es- pecially in Asia, and poses a threat to the European swine indus- try. We do not want to be in a situation where potential low-risk


What resistance have you come across when discussing genome editing in plants or livestock? Many people who I’ve spoken with are supportive of what agricul- tural applications of genome editing can do and the promise that they hold. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t heard concerns. What these concerns are varies with the individual and their background and beliefs. In many cases, it’s not so much the tool itself, but how it is used that’s important. Consumer acceptance or resistance may depend upon what products the technologies are used to create, as well as who uses the tool. Some resistance is focused on the perception of ‘unkept promises’. Some ask where are the solutions that were promised with genetic engineering? For example, prod- ucts with traits focused on consumers’ wishes or on helping poorer farmers in the world. These have not materialised as hoped, but the irony is that the regulatory processes put in place for genetical- ly engineered products have contributed to this. These processes are expensive and only those products with the potential for a high rate of return are introduced. Therefore, two traits, insect- resistant and herbicide-tolerant, in a small number of crops have dominated the market. Some are also concerned with the agricul- tural sector being ‘owned’ by a few large corporations. Again, in general, only those companies with deep pockets have been able to afford to navigate the regulatory processes for genetically engi- neered products. There are exceptions, such as the USDA-Cornell University-University of Hawaii-developed Rainbow Papaya, but they have been few and far between. Regulatory processes that are not proportionate to risk have been effective at keeping many products of genetic engineering off the market. One thing that is perhaps surprising and frustrating is that stricter regulations are often requested in response to concerns or resistance to technolo- gies, although the primary concerns have nothing to do with what our regulatory systems are assessing for food or environmental safety. Putting in place stricter, non-risk-proportionate regulations exacerbate the situation, making it more likely that only big com- panies can navigate the system. Data from Argentina and USDA suggests that risk-proportionate regulatory approaches for prod- ucts of genome editing may change this and allow small compa- nies and public institutions to bring a more diverse selection of agricultural products to market. The hope is that our current and future farmers have more options, not fewer.


▶ ALL ABOUT FEED | Volume 28, No. 3, 2020 17


PHOTO: USDA


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28