Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

2022-05-30

Maybe you welcome gene-edited plants (initially), or maybe you don't, depending on your faith in "the science" to bring us safe and improved foods.

If "the science" is exemplified by the rigor displayed recently by the global medical establishment then maybe we shouldn't be queuing up to applaud this latest initiative.

Of course there is scientific rigour and rigor mortis, and sadly it may be necessary to remind some of our appointed scientific experts of the difference.

In rigor mortis, the limbs become stiff and inflexible (much like the assurances of late from our medical establishment, politicians, and other appointees to high public positions, when confronted by independent experts and lay people alike) whereas in science, the rigour originates from the practice of gladly submitting any particular theorem to any and all challenges freely accepted, and seeing whether or not it stands up to the evidence of experiment and experience, and the application of logic, through free discussion among peers.

'Peers' being in this usage not the residents of the House of Lords, but a declarative indicating that those who present challenges and engage in the discussion are treated equally regardless of their perceived standing or formal qualifications. The science must be argued upon its own merits based solely on evidence and logic, and not upon personality or the authority vested in the participants.

Of late this principle has been honoured more in the breach than in the compliance.

So should we trust the new moves to make it easier to sell us gene-edited food?

The legislation doesn’t really have any thought about the purposes for which these technologies are going to be used ... I think that’s problematic

The government is pressing ahead anyway, partly because we are now outside the EU and can make our own rules. Did the Brexit vote take place because we wanted gene-editing? Silly question obviously, but with our new freedoms (wanted or not) comes the need and responsibility to have our own democratic arguments about such matters.

"What has been removed is the need for an independent risk assessment and the need for transparency"

We need to be clear at this point that as of now the proposed amendment to the regulation (download) covers only the "release, for non-marketing purposes, [of] genetically modified (GM) plants that could have been produced by traditional breeding"

However the Bill itself does appear to cover marketing so has wider scope.

Nevertheless this need not ultimately be a yes or no result. There is an equally good debate to be had about freedom of choice. Freedom in fact means nothing without freedom of choice - the freedom to choose the only option available is not worth much.

So one could and probably should argue that gene-editing should be permitted provided that the consumer can choose between edited and non-edited food. That means (a) correct and visible labelling and (b) availability of both options. 

It also means trust - trust that the labelling is correct and has been properly and accurately applied.

Trust in our authorities has taken a beating recently. This may not politically be the best time to introduce controversial measures if our authorities want to rebuild our trust.

Oh, and did I mention that (according to the government's press release) it seems that they may not be intending to mandate labelling, since they don't mention it once?

"The James Hutton Institute uses innovative precision breeding technologies which have the potential to speed the development of new crop varieties in a more reliable way.

"We welcome both the focus of the Bill which is on the assessment of the properties of the new crop and not the process used to develop it; and the transparency of this information which will be held on a public register"

As always, draw your own conclusions.