2023-04-30
"Precision Breeding" wasn't a term that sprang readily to mind last year. The uninformed may find themselves struggling slightly to disinter the proper meaning, which is probably why the term was chosen, in place of "GM but not really GM" or some other such verbiage.
Yes, what it seems to amount to is GM with a new label. Actually, GM without any label so as not to cause unnecessary alarm to the shopper. Because it's not supposed to be as bad as GM, it's not supposed to need any special consumer labelling. We don't need to worry our poor little heads about it.
Of course it's not the same as GM, otherwise it would need labelling, it's just GM that could have been (but wasn't) produced by selective breeding, using natural techniques such as cross-breeding and selection that have been practised for years. So that's all right then?
Well, maybe, maybe not. As so often it comes down to
(a) The characteristics of each individual case
(b) Who gets to determine between what "could have been" or "could not have been"?
(c) How is the downside risk being managed?
As far as I understand it, the "precision breeder" gets make all these judgements and there are no checks and balances.
Still, that's just my reading of the Bill that Parliament has already voted through and to which the Monarch has already assented, so it's all too late to worry about ...
But for one thing - it only applies in England. The Government would like the devolved governments to follow suit, but strangely the Scots don't seem too keen on nodding it through.
"You end up with a plant that carries a high burden of unintended DNA damage with unknown downstream consequences”
But I'm sure they're worrying over nothing.
