UvA professor on genetic modification: “I fear that this technique will be used for the wrong purposes”
You can’t buy genetically modified fruits and vegetables in Dutch supermarkets. But that could be about to change. Proponents hope genetic modification will help the global food supply. Opponents foresee destructive effects on the environment. “If the only driving force is making money, that doesn't make me happy.”
Genetically modified crops are strictly regulated in Europe and are not meant for consumption. But that may be about to change. For a few years now, there has been a new technique to genetically modify crops: CRISPR-Cas.
Simply put, CRISPR-Cas is a type of molecular scissors that can cut pieces of DNA (genes) very precisely. Errors in the plant's repair mechanism sometimes create a new variant of a gene. Eventually, you can separate the genetically modified CRISPR-Cas part from the new variant through cross breeding. The genes of the new crop then do not reflect that genetic modification was used.
With traditional breeding processes which modify properties of plants or crops, it often takes years before a plant meets human requirements. With CRISPR-Cas, you achieve the same result in a shorter time.
Proponents of CRISPR-Cas therefore advocate deregulation. If you can make plants resistant to today's problems of heat, salty soils, fungi, and insects this way, more crops would survive. You would also need fewer pesticides. On the other hand, there are critical voices, including from UvA professor Michel Haring. He is a molecular plant biologist and director of the Swammerdam Insitute for Life Sciences (SILS). Haring conducts research on genetic modification with genetically modified crops whose DNA has been altered to give the plants special properties.
The greenhouses in which Haring and his colleagues conduct research are located on the Science Park campus. The scientists conduct experiments there with genetically modified crops, such as tomatoes and corn. In certain rooms, they expose the plants to fungi or insects to investigate which genes play a role in resisting them. “But,” he says explicitly, “we do genetic modification research to provide knowledge. Not with the goal of eventually getting genetically modified products on the market.”
Michel Haring has been researching genetic modification at the UvA since 1996. “For example, we look at which gene is responsible for resisting disease. Then we switch off that gene and see if the plant is still resistant. If not, then we know that that gene was truly responsible for resisting disease.”
Haring expressed reservations about deregulating CRISPR-Cas for commercial use. “If this technique is released in Europe I suspect - I fear - that this technique will be used for the wrong purposes, with negative effects on the environment.”
What negative effects are you talking about?
“In South America, genetic modification has been deregulated since the 1990s. There you see that virgin forest has been cut down for soy production. The soybean plants have become resistant to pesticides for certain weeds. It is very efficient - if you spray a pesticide over a field once by plane, all the weeds die, but the soybean stays alive. The problem is that there is also natural variation among weeds. You end up selecting species that are resistant to the pesticide. If they produce seed again, the next year you have even more weeds and so on. You end up with both resistant weeds and resistant soybeans. Then you need more toxic pesticides to remove the weeds that have become resistant. That is incredibly harmful to the environment.”
“In addition, soy is grown for cows, chickens, and pigs in the bio-industry. I am not in favor of destroying nature so we can eat cheap hamburgers. That’s the last thing I support.”
According to proponents of CRISPR-Cas, this technique is not genetic modification.
“Proponents and lobbying organizations have been advocating the use of genetic modification as much as possible for years so that crops become more resistant to diseases, but also to the effects of climate change such as heat and drought. Multinational corporations are often the ones behind this lobbying. The new lobbying technique is to say that CRISPR-Cas is not genetic modification because you crossbreed those crops to the point where they end up being indistinguishable from normal crossbreeds. Lobbyists therefore want this technique exempted from strict European regulations.”
What do you think about that?
“I think you have to abide by the rules. CRISPR-Cas crops ultimately originated from genetic modification and should also be covered by regulations and thus registration. Second, I think consumers should have the freedom of choice to buy products such as fruits and vegetables in the supermarket that are free of genetic modification. By this, I mean products that have not had a negative impact on the environment. Deregulation would limit this freedom of choice because CRISPR-Cas makes it impossible to tell whether a product has been bred naturally or by technology. The CRISPR-Cas variants will be mixed with regular crops, greatly limiting farmer and consumer choice.”
What is a good example of functional genetic modification?
“Breeding crops like apple trees and grape plants is difficult and takes a long time. But if you can use CRISPR-Cas to make these crops resistant and it serves the purpose of using less poison, I’m not necessarily against it. Except I think it should be registered so that consumers still have a choice in the supermarket between the CRISPR-Cas apple or an organic one. And this decision should be made democratically, not just by a handful of multinationals and the ministry who decide that deregulating CRISPR-Cas is economically a good idea.”
“A positive example is the banana plant. In some African countries, residents depend on bananas for their food supply. If they experiment with modern techniques to make bananas resistant to the now rapidly advancing banana fungus, that solves a problem, because those people need to eat. That’s why I think with genetic modification you have to look at how and why you apply a technique on a case-by-case basis. Genetic modification is not necessarily bad, but in the example of the soybean fields in South America where genetic modification was used for economic gain, you can see that it turned out badly for nature.”
Research by the investigative program Zembla revealed that scientists are also conducting a "one-sided and misleading" lobby for genetic engineering food, including those at Wageningen University and Utrecht University. You did not want to sign a letter to deregulate techniques such as CRISPR-Cas. Why not?
“Botanists asked me to sign the letter on behalf of the institute or the UvA. I don’t agree with expressing the opinion of an entire institute. You express an opinion on behalf of yourself. Second, I don’t want a repeat of history with this new technique, like in South America.”
Are you worried?
“Zembla’s investigation shows that the public debate is not being widely conducted. The ministry and certain botanists are discussing possible deregulation, but the opinions of other scientists and Dutch citizens are not being considered. If a lot of Dutch citizens said: I want cheap hamburgers and I don’t care that the animals have been fed genetically modified soy, I understand that - that would be a democratic choice. But right now it’s a handful of officials deciding this for themselves and hoping that the Netherlands will profit economically.”
“If the only driver of genetic modification is making money, I’m not happy about that. There are forces you can’t do anything about. I think people who are in favor of organic farming have to stand up and say: We want freedom of choice for farmers and consumers. This way they can be sure that the organic products they buy have really been obtained in a "natural" way. CRISPR-Cas deregulation puts that at risk.”
