Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights


By Jane Brooks


British plant research establishments are still reeling from the Court of Justice of the EU’s (CJEU) recent judgement that mutagenesis- based gene-editing methods such as CRISPR/Cas9, which can rearrange targeted bits of DNA from the same species, now fall under the same rules that apply to genetic modification via strands of DNA from different species.


In short, gene-edited crops have been brought into the same restrictions as GMO crops within the EU. An illogical decision particularly as it was taken in direct


contradiction to their own scientific advice and in contrast to the policies of many other countries currently carrying out vital GE research. Here in the UK a pilot study of the first field trials of gene-edited


crops were given the go ahead by the government leading, earlier this year, to the field planting of GE Camelina oilseed crops at the Rothamsted Research Centre in Hertfordshire. The Camelina oilseed plants in the trial have no traces of foreign


DNA; this is because they were altered by scientific manipulation of their genetic coding, something that could potentially occur within the natural environment. In the past creating new plants could take decades. Gene editing


is breakthrough technology, which scientists believe will reduce the time taken to engineer novel plants to mere months. Bayer and BASF, both huge players in agricultural plant research,


have pretty much ruled out pursuing genetic plant breeding research within the EU since the ruling. You can’t blame them. UK researchers have found the EU’s


decision mind boggling. Because the CJEU seem more driven by opinion than scientific evidence it now appears that future GE research will move away from Europe. All UK research in to an embryonic technology that could have


an extraordinarily positive impact on seed breeding now has a very uncertain future. This technology has the ability to be life changing, developing new


cereal varieties capable of surviving droughts, resisting disease or even requiring fewer pesticides. New varieties will be needed to feed an ever- growing world population estimated to be around 11 billion by the end of this century. Research will continue, just not on these shores. UK research institutions have been at the forefront of this


technology. They have received public funding to pursue and understand these new plant-breeding techniques. Now, however, our wonderful Scientific Agricultural Research Community has had the rug pulled out from under them; they had reached the point of field-testing the new breeding technologies. I, for one, won’t blame any of them if


PAGE 16 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2018 FEED COMPOUNDER


they leave the UK to pursue their vital research elsewhere – no one wants to feel unwelcome. So barely containing my despair at the future of British GE


Research I turned my attention to the brave new ‘Vision for UK Agriculture’ contained within the pages of the new Agriculture Bill. This, incidentally, was published on the anniversary of the birth of novelist DH Lawrence, who it has to be said, seems to have shared Michael Gove’s utopian view of farming (well, at least here in the UK). Having spent months cosying up with environmentalists, animal


welfarists, and conservation pressure groups, it came as no surprise to see that his own agricultural idealism seems to be viewed through very green tinted glasses. But hang on a minute. We’re going to have world leading standards


in animal welfare? I’d say we are pretty much there on that one and environmentally sustainable practices figure, a lot. But, something is missing – there is absolutely no mention of producing food! It would seem Gove’s rural idyll doesn’t actually include farming


or food production. It does have: managing the land ‘tick’; reducing soil erosion ‘tick’; cleaner water and air ‘tick’; hmm isn’t that what farmers are working towards anyway. Ah I’ve got it, actually decoupling farm support from production has


finally removed the link between farming and food, perhaps that explains it. Although it’s what the bill doesn’t say we need to worry about. Is it paving the way for cheap imports of food, produced outside of the EU, from places where production standards are often lower? What’s at the heart of Gove’s ‘environmental land management


system’? Its intricacies remain completely unknown. It’s meant to be flexible and adaptable as well as tailor-made, but will we have a return to the days of the War-Ags of WW2 when farmers were judged by their contemporaries, old scores settled and some even disposed of their land. I don’t imagine it will be a simplified bureaucratic system. One thing the bill makes clear is the Government’s intention to stop


all direct payments by 2028. Large farms currently receiving £150K or more will be hit with a 25% reduction right from the start. No wonder some large blocks of arable land are appearing on the market, that’s a pretty substantial lump out of many farm incomes, particularly when in many cases profits are marginal. One thing is certain, even with Gove’s frankly frightening view of


the future, our farmers really do want to continue as the main producers of food consumed here in the UK. But the current commitment to environmentalism and high welfare has already seen producers facing additional costs that could easily become unsustainable. There is a huge domestic market for cheap food, including


supermarkets’ own brand value ranges. To feed this demand Gove could be forced to allow a lowering of UK standards to cut costs because, without guaranteed long term subsidies and protection from countries with lower standards, British farmers would drown under a sea of foreign imports. Because, in the end isn’t the food we eat, what we feed to the


animals producing the food that we eat, and public health all intricately linked?


Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd www.cfegroup.com


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  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68