Modified crops also benefits consumers
From the interviews, that I did while writing a piece about the advantages of genetic modifications, two things stood out. Firstly, the frustration of the researchers regarding the difficulty of getting their developed products on the marked, but also the hope that this would be easier in the future. For turning that hope into reality changes are needed. First obviously, the big barrier in the EU at the moment is the ban on genetically modified crops. But there are two more important points that need to be addressed, the public opinion about genetic modified crops and the costs that come with the approval procedure.
Public perception
Starting with the public perception; in Europe it is often viewed as unnatural and not needed. Breeders and growers might be in favour of genetic modified crops, but the public, the consumer is not seeing its benefits. That is why it is important that consumers can see how genetic modified crops benefit them.
Crops that are healthier and more nutritious. Basically, crops that produce fruit and vegetables that have something extra for the consumer. And especially the western consumer. Like tomatoes with vitamin D. GABA-tomatoes that have a blood pressure lowering effect. Or wheat free of glutes that are harmful for celiac patients. The development of this kind of crops will help to shift the public perception of genetically modified crops.
High costs
Then there are the costs that comes along with the process of receiving approval and allowance on the market. Currently these often run in the millions of dollars. Money that university and small companies don’t have. The effect is two sided. While products with a smaller distribution size, often developed through universities and research institutes funded with public money, stay on the shelf. Wanted products often.
But, the products that in the end do end up on the marked often come from a small group of multinationals. This is a disadvantage as it makes farmers dependent on those multinationals, as there is no alternative. But also, because these multinationals only go for crops which will profit them. Products with big markets. These will in time replace alternative local products. Resulting in a reduced choice.
Changes in public perception and costs, will enable the full potential of genetic modification and gene editing
The costs are that high because for each crop for which somewhere during its development genetic modification is used must be tested on safety. This is done through large field studies and analysis of possible toxicity. Also, when we know that the introduced modification is found safe in the past. Even when we know that the modification will not result in the production of toxic products.
The costs are a direct effect in the current regulations. Often based on the knowledge we had 20 years ago. In the intermediate time the technique on its own has proven itself safe for humans, animals, and nature. The cost can be reduced through adjusting those regulations. That is not to say that there should be no test on safety. But that the requests should be more realistic, more in line to what is expected from crops developed through traditional breeding. Using the current knowledge and techniques.
Change on these two points, public perception, and costs, will enable the full potential of genetic modification and gene editing. With advantages for consumers, growers, and breeders.
Plant en Zo 