Thoughts on CHIC Panel

At the end of November, Sonya, Fiona and Rosanna took part in a roundtable discussion on gene editing and the future of farming. It was organised by CHIC, a project looking at different pathways for the development and application of new plant breeding techniques, specifically for creating a multi purpose crop using chicory. The gene editing technique the project uses is CRISPR.

Chicory is used in many different foodstuffs (and also makes a nice salad). Embra were invited to represent the laypersons’ point of view on gene editing and a sustainability perspective. We spoke to researchers from CHIC and representatives from the Genesprout Initiative, who work to increase public understanding and foster open dialogue on plant breeding.

You can watch the video of the conversation here. 

Rosanna

It was interesting and slightly intimidating to be involved in a conversation on a topic I know very little about, especially as the other panel members and audience were overwhelmingly in favour of gene editing. I have a basic grasp of gene editing - I know it is different to genetic modification, but I’m not sure what the associated risks are with the technology. 

There was little point in going toe to toe with the other panel members on the science - we simply don’t know enough about it, and that wasn’t the point of the conversation. Instead, we raised our concerns from a social and environmental perspective. My key concern was who would have access to this technology, which was being held up as a panacea to almost all farming and environmental challenges in the panel discussion. Would it disproportionately benefit the farmers who did have access to gene edited crops? This isn’t just a concern for European farmers, but farmers all around the world who struggle due to our fundamentally unequal food system. 

It’s not just a question of farming methods damaging the environment, causing soil degradation and biodiversity loss. Farmers in lower income countries have to compete with farmers in wealthier nations who receive huge government subsidies, while navigating a food system dominated by trade monopolies, crop dumping, and powerful multinational agribusinesses. I’m not sure what gene editing does to address these fundamental flaws.

In the past, companies have used their patents on genetically modified seeds irresponsibly. Monsanto has been held responsible for locking Indian farmers in relentless debt cycles with their Bt cotton seeds, driving them to financial ruin and suicide. Monsanto even engineered the seeds to be sterile, so any seed from a plant grown from Bt cotton seeds couldn’t be used to grow crops the following season. We didn’t find out what the patenting regulation would be on gene edited seeds, and from an initial internet search, it seems to be a complex issue.

Although gene editing does sound like a valuable tool to have in the adaptation toolbox for the future of farming, I’m concerned that when it comes to addressing the climate crisis, we are always looking to ‘innovate’ our way out of every problem, without looking at the systemic issues that cause them. Unfortunately, the panel discussion didn’t let us explore this particular (and persistent) dilemma.  

Fiona

After the round table discussion and the preparatory reading for it, I felt like I had gained a better understanding of new plant breeding techniques. In this sense, I’d describe the event as an interesting and useful experience. I especially like CHIC's focus on communicating their project (e.g. through art) and involving the general public to make up their own minds.

However, I would have liked the discussion of the social and environmental impact of new plant breeding techniques to be more embedded in the general discussion about the food system in times of climate change. My main concern here is the framing of tools such as gene editing. On the one hand, new plant breeding techniques like CRISPR can be looked at as methods that can help farmers improve plant variety. Even though I don’t know enough about the science to really understand potential unwanted outcomes, such as the impact on other species or long-term consequences (and we did not speak about them at the event), this seems like a potentially useful method to produce more robust crops. One benefit would be reducing the use of agrochemicals. In this sense, I think new plant breeding techniques could generally be useful tools, but I’d like to learn even more about potential long-term effects on other species.

On the other hand, I believe that framing these techniques as an instrument for climate change mitigation and a tool to help increase food production, requires the discussion to include other aspects, like the systemic problems of the food system. There is already more than enough food on the planet to feed everyone, so for less people to go hungry, addressing inequality, poverty and the power structures in the food system might be a more useful focus than ensuring we can produce more food through gene editing. This is not to say that tools such as new plant breeding techniques cannot be useful additions to other climate change adaptation tools. Echoing Rosanna’s concern, I just think that focusing on the most innovative, technical solutions and spending a lot of money on flashy tools instead of focusing on more systemic change, does not address the root of the problem. Can gene editing really help alleviate hunger if it acts within the current food system? How can we ensure access to these new techniques is widely available and accessible to everyone? Once widely available, can farmers afford to make the choice not to use gene editing in a competitive food market, if they don’t want to? Who will profit most from new plant breeding techniques, the climate, consumers, farmers, or companies? 

Sonya

I became passionate about sustainability and the climate crisis through my interest in food and social justice. So naturally, I find conversations around gene editing crops fascinating, albeit very confusing. My knowledge of gene editing is basic: I know about Monsanto and the effects of its patents on smallholder farmers. I also know, from a food security course, that gene editing, scientifically, can support agriculture amid the climate emergency. 

I was aware of how contentious gene editing can be, so I checked in with my employer (a sustainability organisation in the education sector) to see if they had any tips. My colleague, a sustainable food expert, reaffirmed my beliefs in its controversial nature and advised me when sitting on the panel to “stick with what I know” and to definitely not try to argue the science. 

While on the panel, I voiced my concerns that widespread gene editing may have unknown and unintended negative consequences on Indigenous cultures and traditional seed saving practices. Seeds, and their saving and sharing, are linked to celebrations, festivals, spirituality and community - what would happen if traditional practices were disrupted?  I asked how we could ensure this wouldn’t happen. Unfortunately, my goal to discuss the social consequences didn’t come to fruition; my question wasn’t answered by participating scientists but instead redirected to a conversation about how amazing and ingenious gene editing is.  

I don’t believe science on its own is amazing. It is the communication, the precautions, the care and empathy and understanding embedded in its delivery that allows it to achieve any good. Widespread gene editing may be an example of good science, but I’m not convinced it’s an example of good ethics just yet. 

Bonus - Chicory Recipe

This is for chicory (endives), not root chicory.

For 2 people

2 x endives/chicory

Half a lemon

Walnuts

Olive oil

Salt & pepper

Break up the endives and lay the leaves side by side on a dish.

Cover with oil, lemon juice, salt and pepper.

Crush up the walnuts in your hands and scatter over the salad.

Enjoy!