Potential agricultural, human health benefits of gene editing outweigh risks

Gene editing is the latest technology focused on modifying the DNA of a species that offers the potential for large improvements in human, animal, and environmental health. The benefits could be particularly great for the world’s poorest—Bill Gates claims gene editing can help lift millions out of poverty through reducing food insecurity and human health challenges. Ethical and regulatory concerns, however, may prevent its potential from being reached. Gene editing is the process of just that: editing the DNA of an organism in order to disable faulty genes and correct harmful mutations. The approach, often referred to as CRISPR—which is the most common gene-editing method—makes it relatively easy and cheap to target and cut genetic material. Some have compared the use of CRISPR to editing a word processing document, while previous molecular tools would be analogous to using a printing press. CRISPR technology could be transformative, particularly in the prevention and treatment of human diseases. Research is currently underway for its use in single-gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease (HD). HD is due to the mutation of a single gene and there is hope that CRISPR could inactivate the defective gene in a single dose to prevent this incurable disease. While the current human health focus of gene editing is on the cure of genetic illnesses like HD, CRISPR could also be used to enhance the positive characteristics of embryos and, in the process, create designer babies. The ability to alter the human genome has significant social and ethical implications. Gene editing could also revolutionize plant and animal breeding. With plants, gene editing can be used to increase yields, develop tolerance to adverse events like drought or pests, remove allergens (i.e. gluten-free wheat), and enhance nutritional quality. The advances from improved crop varieties could be particularly significant for farmers and consumers in developing countries. For example, gene editing has improved the starch quality in cassava and altered the production of mutant seeds so that it is much easier to breed this important staple for many poor households. Similarly with livestock, gene editing can increase productivity, decrease nutrient waste, reduce reliance on antibiotics, and remove allergens with the greatest relative gains for developing countries (i.e. heat-resistant dairy cows). With all these potential benefits, what is holding us back from a full-on embrace of gene editing? For many, it relates to the morality of working with genetic codes. Particularly in the human context, many individuals feel instinctual fear to the concept of altering humanity—introducing designer babies and eugenics to any conversation has the Hitler effect—all conversation stops. However, from an agricultural perspective, crops and livestock are not humans. Gene editing is a natural extension of traditional breeding, but much faster, much more specific, and potentially cheaper. Gene editing is not genetic modification (GM), in which a sequence of DNA from one species is inserted into another. There are no unnatural crossbreeds in gene editing. Yet, the full use of gene editing depends on whether it is able to garner wide-scale political and consumer support, which GM technology has been unable to do. Proponents of gene editing hope the public will be willing to accept potential risks because these will be outweighed by the benefits accruing to many in society. In contrast, the lack of broad support for GM technology has been partially attributed to the initial applications of GM technology being focused largely on farmers, so the general public bore the risks with little gain. The challenges related to acceptance of gene editing are highlighted by the European Union’s recent decision to treat gene-edited products the same as genetically modified products. While most scientists involved in gene editing feel this decision is almost farcical, the significant social engagement hurdle created by our instinctual fear of ‘unnatural’ products, particularly their potential unknown long-term effects, leaves gene editing in a curious position—a potential saviour with a lot of work left to do. The governance and ethical issues surrounding gene editing is typical of other technologies being developed for the agri-food sector. The challenge is to communicate the trade-offs with gene—which differ between plants and humans—to a public that is further removed from the farm, and with a science that is difficult to articulate. Mike von Massow is an associate professor at the University of Guelph. Mike's research also considers the structure and performance of food value chains as they evolve in response to changing consumer preferences and other factors. Alfons Weersink is a professor at the University of Guelph. His research considers the economic impacts of new technology and government policy on agricultural structure. The Hill Times

Potential agricultural, human health benefits of gene editing outweigh risks

The full use of gene editing depends on whether it is able to garner wide-scale political and consumer support, which genetic modification technology has been unable to do.

New Health Canada plant breeding guidelines continue to protect Canada’s food supply: department

Stop the shift to corporate self-regulation of GMOs

Health Canada’s new guidelines for novel foods take hands-off approach

New Health Canada plant breeding guidelines continue to protect Canada’s food supply: department

Canada needs a modern, national health data architecture

To address online harms, Canada must commit to digital media literacy

A cure for multiple sclerosis could be just around the corner

Renewable energy is the way to go, says letter writer

Supporting local broadcasters is critical for our democracy

Enter Electric Green GloFish: why Bill S-5 must protect nature from genetic pollution

Why Canada can’t afford to abandon basic research

Agricultural innovation key to sector growth

Parliamentarians were right to pass law against genetic discrimination

To diffuse technology or not to diffuse: that’s the question

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Potential agricultural, human health benefits of gene editing outweigh risks

The full use of gene editing depends on whether it is able to garner wide-scale political and consumer support, which genetic modification technology has been unable to do.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter