Seeds of change: Will the Scottish Government change its mind in time to reap the benefits from gene-editing technology?

It’s been nearly five years since Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won a Nobel prize for their gene-editing breakthrough, CRISPR.

Their tool, hailed as “tremendously powerful”, cuts and modifies DNA, helping researchers push forward studies on how to cure diseases and create crops that are resistant to environmental hazards.

Yet, four prime ministers and three first ministers later, the topic remains a hotly contested issue in the tug-of-war between Holyrood and Westminster.

The promise posed by gene-edited crops, not to be confused with gene-modified crops, lies in making small changes to a plant’s gene to enhance its resilience. In contrast, the latter involves completely replacing parts of an organism’s DNA with that of a different species.

In other words, gene-editing fast tracks what would occur naturally over time through evolution.

The politics needs to be taken out of the situation

Earlier this month, rural affairs secretary Steve Reed confirmed the UK Government would press ahead with gene-editing technology, introducing the secondary legislation needed to enforce the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 by the end of March.

Meanwhile, north of the border, agriculture minister Jim Fairlie confirmed to Holyrood the Scottish Government remains opposed to the policy. He said: “Regulation of genetic modification is an area of devolved responsibility, and I expect full cooperation in matters where any legislation relating to genetic modification will impact upon the interests of Scottish businesses and consumers.

“The Scottish Government is currently working to gather the views of farmers and other stakeholders on this issue, which will inform any future policy decision.”

Echoing the Scottish Government’s concerns, some organisations argue the Act was “rushed” through the UK Parliament, including campaigning group Beyond GM, which described it to Holyrood as a “flawed piece of legislation”.

And its concerns, at least to an extent, are not unfounded. For instance, the Act would create a conflict between the Internal Market Act and devolved powers, as it would allow gene-edited crops grown in England to be sold in Scotland, despite the Scottish Government choosing not to adopt the changes included in the bill.

However, this cautious approach north of the border has proven to be a major frustration among industry leaders. Ed Barker, head of policy and external affairs at the Agricultural Industries Confederation, says: “The politics needs to be taken out of the situation, and it really needs an objective conversation on how it would fit in Scotland specifically.”

Like Barker, Scottish farmers are dismayed by the government’s unwillingness to adopt the technology. From the outset, they have backed it, citing its potential to address a range of challenges, from climate change to rising costs. In 2021, the National Farmers’ Union Scotland president Martin Kennedy claimed the technology did not “pose any greater threat to the environment or human and animal health” than traditional techniques, adding that the government’s approach would “severely damage” farmer’s competitiveness.

Recent extreme weather conditions have become an unparalleled challenge for those trying to grow crops. During the winter of 2023-24, Scotland – which for decades has been known as a safe haven for agriculture – was hit by more than 10 severe storms, including Storm Babet which flooded hundreds of acres of farmland, impacting winter sown crops and delaying spring planting.

Experts claim that the gene-editing process could help ensure long-term sustainability of the food industry – a sector that generates a turnover of around £15bn.

Ingo Hein, head of potato genetics at the James Hutton Institute, says: “Climate change is really unpredictable. We have to be able to adapt our crops much faster, so we almost need a whole repertoire of well-adapted cultivates ready to go for whatever we find that might happen during the growing season. And that’s where gene editing and breeding and everything together has an important role to play.”

And the SNP’s decision to rule out the technology could soon compromise its net zero ambitions, which are hanging in the balance after it scrapped its 2030 interim climate target last April.

Take potatoes, which have 29,100 hectares dedicated to their cultivation in Scotland – the equivalent of five Loch Nesses. One of the main varieties grown is King Edward, which is over 120 years old, meaning “it’s completely not resistant to any diseases, so it needs a hell of a lot of sprays”, Hein explains. Farming sprays and pesticides significantly contribute to greenhouse emissions in an agriculture sector that is already responsible for almost 20 per cent of Scotland’s total emissions.

It will inevitably have an impact on research in Scotland if the current position is held in the longer term

“It’s a technology that we can’t afford to ignore,” Hein insists. “Climate change will make it harder to grow crops. We might not have the luxury to actually demand a certain type of crop. We’d just be lucky to have something there in the supermarket that we can use to feed us.

“I don’t want to scaremonger, but I think that’s something we have to consider.”

Moreover, gene-editing could extend the shelf-life of food, reducing food waste. For example, Tropic Bioscience, a start-up based in Norwich, has developed non-browning bananas to address this issue.

Hein, who is currently looking into identifying specific potato genes that are targeted by pathogens, adds: “If I was a betting man, I would always bet on the disease simply because the pathogen can change every year, whereas our crops don’t. It’s an unfair playing field to start off with. This technology is the only way we can ever try and get ahead of the pathogen. And that’s not just late blight. It’s viruses. It’s nematodes.”

The Russia-Ukraine war has also shown the strain global conflicts can put on the international supply chain. Responsible for providing around half of the world’s sunflower oil, Ukraine’s halt in exports brought both a significant shortage in products and a rise in prices. Indeed, it was this conflict that played a pivotal role in the UK Government’s swift approval of precision breeding. Given that the technology allows for crops to grow faster and more efficiently, experts urged for the law to be fast-tracked in a bid to ensure the country’s self-sufficiency.

The regulatory battle between south and north of the border will also risk Scotland’s reputation as a research hub in the area, Barker argues. He says: “It will inevitably have an impact on gene-editing research in Scotland if the current position is held in the longer term – simply because if the market is starting to develop in England, then it’s inevitable that the research will follow as well.”

Hein confirms to Holyrood the difference in policy means he can’t carry out field trials north of the border, and although he insists this doesn’t “disadvantage” his research, reports suggest otherwise. A paper published last year in the scientific journal Transgenic Research described field trials as “crucial” to advance agricultural research.

Scientists also argue gene-editing could make a difference in addressing health inequalities up and down the country. Almost a third of Scottish adults are living with obesity, and this rate is higher in areas of greater deprivation.

However, with the British Growers Association’s warning earlier this month that fruit and vegetable prices could rise again by 10 to 12 per cent following Labour’s decision to increase employer National Insurance contributions, those wanting to change their diets might be unable to afford to do so.

Climate change is really unpredictable. We have to be able to adapt our crops much faster

Gene-edited crops could offer a solution. Small DNA changes to produce could allow growers to deliver food that packs more nutrients, meaning fewer vegetables need to be eaten for the same health benefits. Researchers at the John Innes Centre in Norwich have gene-edited tomatoes to produce vitamin D, which doesn’t occur naturally in the fruit. This could help address the nation-wide deficiency, with more than half of Brits having below-optimal levels.

Looking ahead, Hein says: “It’s not going to be a silver bullet that’s going to solve all our problems, but we have to get the message across that the crop counts, not the way we produce the crop. It doesn’t matter if we achieved it through traditional breeding or through gene-editing approaches, as long as the crop does what we need it to do and has all the important aspects that we need it to have.”