UK Government paves the way for new technology

Rewriting nature

Will gene editing mean the creation of ‘Frankenfoods’ or a new era in productive aquaculture?

ONE of the main arguments presented in favour of the UK’s exit from the European Union was that it would make it possible to diverge from EU regula� ons. A poten� ally far-reaching change is already under way in the fi eld of gene� cs.

The EU has been implacably opposed to any form of gene� c engineering in agriculture – in contrast to the US, where gene� cally modifi ed organisms (GMOs) are commonplace in soya produc� on, for example. Now GMO technology is even being deployed in aquaculture, with AquaBounty Technologies’ GMO salmon about to enter full-scale commercial produc� on.

The UK is not about to follow America’s lead and permit GMOs in agriculture, but there is interest in a diff erent approach – gene edi� ng.

Gene edi� ng involves inser� ng new DNA sequences, dele� ng exis� ng ones or modifying them in the genome of a living organism. Unlike GMOs, where a DNA from two completely diff erent species could be combined, gene edi� ng does not result in any outcomes that could not be achieved through selec� ve breeding. It is, however, much quicker than selec� on and much more precise.

For example, gene sequences with desirable traits from other individuals – such as fast growth rates or enhanced disease resistance – can be replicated. Alterna� vely, undesirable traits can be edited out.

In early 2021, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Aff airs (Defra) issued a consulta� on document on gene edi� ng. A summary of the consulta� on and the Government’s response was published in September last year, including an indica� on that relaxa� on of the regula� ons would begin in the less controversial area of gene edi� ng for plants rather than animals. On 20 January, the Government confi rmed that legisla� on along these lines would be introduced.

According to Jo Churchill, Minister for Agri-Innova� on and Climate Adapta� on: “New gene� c technologies could help us tackle some of the biggest challenges of our age – around food security, climate change and biodiversity loss.

“Now we have the freedom and opportunity to foster innova� on, to improve the environment and help us grow plants that are stronger and more resilient to climate change. I am grateful to the

Above: Ross Houston Below: Gene edi� ng Opposite: Could the genes from Pacifi c salmon species be used to protect their Atlan� c cousins?

farming and environmental groups that have helped us shape our approach, and I look forward to seeing what we can achieve.”

Scien� sts undertaking research with gene� c technologies will have to con� nue to no� fy Defra of any research trials. Gene-edited plants will s� ll be classifi ed as GMOs and commercial cul� va� on of these plants, and any food products derived from them, will s� ll need to be authorised in accordance with exis� ng rules.

GMO regula� on is a devolved ma� er and the administra� ons of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will need to decide whether to follow Westminster’s lead.

The consulta� on last year indicated that there is strong resistance in some quarters to gene edi� ng – especially if it is to be extended to animals.

For example, Jo Whi� ield, Chief Execu� ve of the Co-op supermarket chain, comments: “Scru� ny by independent scien� sts and offi cials, as well as engagement with civil society, is essen� al. We would expect government to clearly set out how it intends to regulate gene edi� ng, whilst providing clear condi� ons of use and any labelling requirements.

“We have no current plans to change our policy on prohibi� ng gene� cally modifi ed organisms, which includes organisms produced by gene edi� ng.”

Animal welfare charity the RSPCA says: “We remain deeply concerned about gene edi� ng and its implica� ons for animals, and believe there are more ethical solu� ons.”

A report from the Nuffi eld Council on Bioethics concluded: “In order safely to introduce a technology with the poten� al to accelerate breeding aims, we would need to have procedures in place to ensure that acceptable levels of welfare, and indeed jus� ce, were secured for the animals subject to such a technology.”

Could gene edi� ng be applied to aquaculture in the UK? Professor Ross Houston is currently Chair of Aquaculture Gene� cs at The Roslin Ins� tute, University of Edinburgh – and soon to be Director of Innova� on with Benchmark Gene� cs.

He says: “Gene edi� ng – for example, using CRISPR/Cas9 – has the poten� al to speed up this process to develop be� er performing, healthier and more robust strains for farmers. Gene-edi� ng technology also off ers the possibility of harnessing desirable traits present in closely related species.

“For example, there are two large ongoing projects focused on understanding the reasons why certain Pacifi c salmon species are resistant to sea lice while Atlan� c salmon are suscep� ble. The goal of these projects is then to edit the Atlan� c salmon genome at precise loca� ons to alter their response to mimic that of the resistant Pacifi c salmon.

“This could be transforma� ve for the industry if successful, with the economic benefi ts alongside animal welfare improvements and reduced impact on the environment, including reducing or elimina� ng the need for chemical treatments.”

Houston points out that the high fecundity and external fer� lisa� on of most aquaculture species could facilitate genome edi� ng for research and applica� on at a scale that is not possible in farmed terrestrial animals.

He adds: “Most of the major salmon breeding companies are inves� ng in research and development of gene-edi� ng technologies, and this suggests to me that there is certainly a desire for judicious applica� on of the technology in produc� on in the future to improve health, welfare and produc� on of farmed stocks.”

Houston recognises that there are concerns around gene edi� ng, including the risk that there could be unintended consequences arising from the edi� ng process, or inaccuracy in edi� ng.

He argues, however: “If a targeted edit or change is made that confers a desirable trait (e.g. complete resistance to sea lice in salmon), then this would have to be the beginning of a process of assessment. In that process, it would be necessary to carefully conduct trials to confi rm that resistance to sea lice was the only diff erence observed in the animal, and that there were no associated nega� ve impacts on health or welfare of the fi sh.

“The concern about poten� al inaccuracy of the edi� ng technology is easier to address as the technology exists to rapidly assess any so-called ‘off -target’ eff ects on the genome – for example, using high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies.

“Finally, there will be some concern about poten� al risk of interbreeding with wild species, and this could be mi� gated by ensuring that any produc� on animals carrying desirable edits are also sterile, such that any poten� al escapees could not reproduce.”

The technology to apply gene-edi� ng techniques at a commercial level in aquaculture already exist today. Drawing up the ethical and regulatory framework to allow this to happen will, however, take � me. FF

Innova� on with Benchmark Gene� cs.

“This could be transforma� ve for the industry”