Genome editing refers to new forms of targeted intervention to alter the genomes of any organisms. The Opinion’s area-specific analyses are complemented by overarching considerations on long-debated questions revived by genome editing, notably about the different meanings that ought to be attributed to humanness, naturalness and diversity.
“Agriculture contributes nearly one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, uses 37 percent of landmass (excluding Antarctica), and accounts for 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawn from rivers, lakes, and aquifers.” (WRI graphic: The Global Food Challenge Explained in 18 Graphics) (page 66)
Genome editing has been proposed as a means to understand and preserve corals and their ecosystems,to diversify agriculture to shore up food security, to combat invasive species plaguing ecosystems around the world,36 and even to resurrect extinct species. (page 19)
The very first prerequisite for an intervention to be considered safe enough is knowledge about its effectiveness in terms of potential benefits, and about potential harms. There must be scientific evidence that the technological intervention contributes to the solution of the problem for which it is designed; and the robustness of this evidence needs to be assessed. The second prerequisite refers to the ratio between risks and potential benefits: risks must not exceed benefits. (page 31)
Genome editing to modify the susceptibility of animals to diseases (e.g. African swine fever or Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome) could prevent diseases in farm animal populations and thus avoid animal suffering, medical treatment of animals (e.g. with antibiotics), culling of diseased animals and the resulting vast economic losses for the farmers. (page 43)
Many questions raised by genome editing revive older, general questions about the instrumentalisation of animals, for example concerning their mass production or the use of non-human primates in experimentation. (page 47)
Industrial stakeholders point to the advantages of Genome editing in terms of ecological sustainability, economic sustainability and social sustainability and underline both the increasing public acceptance of this technology and its potential to produce enough healthy food for the population, while preserving precious resources, such as soil and water, and mitigating climate change. (...) The use of modified plants could improve our use of land resulting in the (re)creation of more natural environments. Choosing the modification carefully could result in better pest management, less reliance on chemical fertiliser, and abetter shelf life for plants.
Consumers’ organisations, environmental protection organisations and several NGOs underline the risks associated with coexistence of GM crops alongside natural species, the lack of public acceptance and the risks stemming from the monopoly which this sector of industry could induce. (page 63)
Whichever argument is considered, the need for a holistic view of the use of land, water and the environment is recognised. (page 65)
There is much false information or hype provided by all sides in the debate about new technologies that produce this most basic commodity. Mechanisms for ensuring the veracity of the information provided to the public should be carefully considered. The effects of increased prices and availability where strong regulation is required should also be considered. This would impact on the poorest segment of society. (...) Patents are a mechanism for cost recovery. Patents also increase the costs of those using the patented varieties and may inhibit the use of new varieties by the farmer. (page 78)
How can we ensure adequate funding for projects that will benefit those who need it most? (...) What elites in some parts of the world consider the most pressing issues, and what solutions they may consider just, does not necessarily reflect the preferences and needs of all people in the world. We need democratically legitimate and epistemically just ways to decide what gene drives should be used for, on what species and for what purposes, seeking to ensure that those who need it most benefit from gene drives. (page 82)
The EGE is calling for a wide-ranging and inclusive societal debate on genome editing, for efforts towards joint monitoring and learning with regard to both regulatory and scientific developments, and for international engagement towards global governance. The debate should be based on democratic principles, take into account present and future generations and include local and European perspectives.
This is the 32nd Opinion of the EGE and follows a formal request by the European Commission to examine the ethical issues surrounding novel genome editing techniques across all areas of application. The Opinion builds on the EGE’s Statement on gene editing.
The Commission will present, at the end of April, at the request of the Council, a study on New Genomic Techniques.
The Commission will present, at the end of April, at the request of the Council, a study on New Genomic Techniques.
The European Green Deal Communication mentions under the Farm to Fork strategy that "the EU needs to develop innovative ways to protect harvests from pests and diseases and to consider the potential role of new innovative techniques to improve the sustainability of the food system, while ensuring that they are safe." As such, among its other objectives, the current study will also explore the potential of NGTs to contribute in addressing challenges identified in the Green Deal as well as investigate safety-related aspects.
It is envisaged that the European Union’s upcoming research funding programme Horizon Europe might “allocate €5 million for projects aimed at understanding the benefits and risks of genome editing technologies in agriculture over the next two years.” The ‘Farm to Fork’ plan has established the aim of reducing the use of fertilisers by 30% and turn 25% of conventionally farmed land into organic farming. In pursuit of these aims, the EU would prepare to “enable major advances in the life sciences and biotechnology, in new genomic techniques, such as gene/genome editing.” (page 64)
Modern techniques for the production of new varieties, whether or not by genome editing, have been the prerogative of large seed companies, due to the cost of producing them. This has led to the monopolisation of the production of seed within a small group of companies, and considerable public reaction to some of these companies. Very considerable testing of new varieties produced using genetic modification ensuring their safety resulted in high costs, which made the production of such varieties by small companies or research organisations prohibitive. This in turn led to the monopolisation about which there are many concerns. The techniques could have an impact on distribution systems, resulting in quality food becoming available where it is needed, in the urban environment.
(page 77)
Related:
The failure of old GM technologies is a forewarning that such new GM techniques will also be met with fierce opposition. We will not tolerate in Africa, continuing hegemonic control and privatisation of African food systems. African civil society has called and continues to call for a ban on both failed GMOs and the latest genome editing and gene drive technofixes. What is needed is to decolonise African agricultural and health systems from unequal colonial relationships with the North and the rest of world, which continue to exacerbate our ecological and health crises.
No comments:
Post a Comment