Letter to the editor:
Response to the Grocer article August 2024
8th August 2024
Dear Sir
International law firm, Fieldfishers’ gung-ho article ‘Gene editing can improve food security’ (06 August) is bewildering.
Rather than suggesting that GE will always be safe and requires less scrutiny, many are calling for increased research and investment into farming systems that already address challenges presented by global heating and biodiversity collapse.
Organic is a proven pathway to a safe, evidence-based and legally binding framework that delivers against those goals without the interventions of multinational corporations.
People here will know the UK’s GE legislative process has been fraught with serious misgivings. From the Regulatory Policy Committee’s judgement of Defra’s Impact Assessment as ‘not fit for purpose’, to the wide-ranging criticism of the FSA’s consultation process, as reported in The Grocer in November.
OF&G wants to see innovation, but not without regulatory safeguards to protect the food chain and the environment. There are already excellent examples that utilise cutting edge crop technology while considering wider system dynamics, rather than focusing solely on breeding specific patentable key traits.
To address food security fears and the threat of nature and climate crises, scientists need to look beyond the laboratory. In the context of the multiple and complex issues we face, GE remains unproven. There are good alternatives that pose far less risk.
Steven Jacobs, business development manager, OF&G (Organic Farmers & Growers)
This letter appeared in the print version of the Grocer 17 August 2024