The recent Defra public consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies suggested that gene editing was the same as ‘traditional plant breeding’. But, says Kathleen Garnett, if its patented its not traditional.
EU and UK attempts to change genome editing regulations could have opened the door to interesting, even productive discussions. Instead they have further entrenched the unhelpful polarisation of early GMO debates.
During this year’s Oxford Real Farming Conference Global 21 we took the opportunity to conduct a short survey to ascertain which potential threats to agroecology from genome editing (GE) most […]
The results of our latest survey indicate that amongst the UK’s food and farming organisations, a new dynamic is at play which is less cohesive, less engaged, more cautious or hesitant than was expressed by many of these same groups in the early days of genetic engineering in agriculture.
The lay public, those who are paying members or who donate regularly to conservation causes, would expect conservation organisations, both big and small, to be getting to grips with genome editing. Our survey suggests this is not the case.
Our Citizen’s Attitudes to Genome Editing in Food and Farming survey examined the attitudes on genome editing in food and farming – and in particular issues around regulation. Some of the answers were all too familiar, but some showed a greater understanding and willingness to consider nuance.
A new report suggests that while plant breeders of all kinds support the idea of ‘working together’ – there are few practical or regulatory pathways for achieving ‘co-existence’
We need an active public debate on the ethics of gene editing technology to realise its potential and prevent it being used in nefarious ways.