Will Gene Editing Reshape Food Production as We Know it?

In the context of splicing two species together for the sake of crop resilience to climate, weather and pests, gene engineering has gotten a lot of flack. From ethical arguments about the right and wrong of crossing species to basic complaints about taste and nutritional value, disapproving parties tend to view genetically modified food production as strictly a grower focused initiative. Learning from the past, scientists and agribusinesses have asked if newer technology was focused on consumer benefit would the technology be more widely accepted? 

For about a decade advancements in technology, like CRISPR, could produce food that meets consumer taste, nutrition and sustainability demands while still offering farmers high yield varieties. CRISPR does not splice DNA from two organisms together. Gene editing can be limited to changes that could happen in nature, but happen faster with this technology. 

A Chinese lab has successfully produced a better tasting tomato by simply turning off sugar break genes. The tomato grew to be the same size as “normal” tomatoes sold in supermarkets and trials have so far revealed that the modification to sugar break genes has no negative effect on overall crop yield. 

Potential Benefits of Gene Edited Food

Aside from your kids now asking for second helpings of asparagus and collard greens, the potential benefits to global food systems is exciting. More nutritionally dense and better tasting produce could address the issues of undernutrition and malnutrition, by encouraging people to eat the food or reducing the amount of food required to avoid vitamin deficiencies. Modified variety could be both nutritionally enhanced and resistant. 

There is a lot of excitement about the technology. Plants grow in wild plants grow in hostile environments and survive. If more of those genes were active in domesticated varieties could grow in harsh climates and under extreme pest pressure. The output could also be healthier products that require fewer resources. After all, we have been strategically breeding traits in crops for as long as agriculture has shaped our communities. Technologies like CRISPR simply help us achieve initiatives faster.  

From a farming perspective, growers could see a continued decrease in input expenses as scientists fine tune seed varieties that require less, resist more or are optimized to specific growing conditions. The cheaper it is to produce the less consumers have to pay. Unlike cultivated meat or fermented protein options, which are still proving to be very expensive to produce, gene editing could potentially deflate food prices. Instead of searching for crop options well suited to specific regions, we could see crops modified to be grown anywhere. It would be a win for regional strong food systems.

Actual Market Development Options

However, history proves that the mention of gene editing is often met with skepticism; or at least a no until we can undoubtedly prove the benefits outweigh any environmental, ethical, safety or economic concerns. Look no further than the golden rice debate to see that even viable options developed quickly can undergo a lengthy process of adoption and policy support. Currently there are over 30 GMO foods that have been cleared for market access by United States standards that are not being accepted in global markets

Thirty-eight countries have banned the cultivation of genetically modified crops domestically. A portion of those countries including India, Peru, Venezuela, Russia and Kenya do not allow imports of GMO foods at all. And, most countries require clear GMO labeling on food products. We may have yet to discover the full implications of genetically modified food, but we see the importance of making consumers aware of differences. In the U.S. where restrictions are relatively low, consumers have argued that modified varieties lack flavor and they have questioned the nutritional manipulation.

Will gene editing meet a similar fate in market development? We certainly can’t fault a government for wanting to understand how allowing modified food will impact social structures, agricultural economies, public health and if modifying plant DNA opens the door to other DNA experiments that present ethical challenges.

Raising the glucose level of vegetables to make them taste better could have broad health implications. Importing fortified grains could undercut domestic cultivation and reshape agricultural communities. Introducing farming to new areas will have an environmental ripple effect. Editing the DNA of a tomato could have different ethical perspectives than editing the genes of a pig, a cow or a goat.

Who is Funding Gene Editing?

GMO projects have been criticized by consumers since they are funded by big agricultural corporations like Bayer, Corteva and Syngenta. Based on nutritional or flavor criteria, genetically modified food is perceived to have fallen short in the pursuit of producing valuable food. Yet on a global scale, considering portions of the population who do not have rich farmland like the United States, is the ability to farm a genetically manipulated tomato better than no tomato at all?

CRISPR, taking a slightly different approach to gene editing, has secured project development funding from a wider array of supporters including the energy sector, health and pharmaceutical entities and governments as well as, agricultural corporations and private philanthropy groups. For better or worse it appears that many sectors see gene editing as a future influencer on market dynamics and they want to be at the forefront of innovation or have a say in policy as it pertains to their industry.

Policy is at the crux of gene editing’s success or failure. As we've seen with golden rice and the myriad of other modified foods available, governments have been slow to develop policies that support the increased trade of these goods. Even now there is an ebb and flow. As India rolls out its first regulatory policy considerations which could make it easier to export goods into the country, South Korea is tightening its stance on gene manipulation in food systems.

Despite the debates over how we modify foods and if they truly do add value to our global food needs, the genetically altered food category is on trajectory to nearly double in worth over the next decade. It has already grown to a size that global markets have to view it as a market influencer. With the addition of CRISPR technology and a more targeted effort to address taste and nutrition issues, even South Korea may have to consider where gene-edited food could have a positive impact on health and economic development.