30/05/2019 Crispr gene-editing will change the way Americans eat – here's what's coming | US news | The Guardian

Crispr gene editing will change the way Americans

eat here's what's coming
The technology will be labeled and subject to stringent health and environment review in the EU,
but not in the US, where produce could be radically changed

Karen Weintraub
Thu 30 May 2019 06.50 BST

S
oon, soybeans will be bred to yield oil without dangerous trans fats. Lettuce will be
grown to handle warmer, drier fields. Wheat to contain less gluten. And pigs bred to
resist deadly viruses. Someday, maybe even strawberry plants whose delicate berries
can be picked by machine instead of by hand.

Ten years ago, such genetic changes would have been considered science fiction – or so far off
into the future of breeding as to be almost unimaginable. But gene editing, particularly with a
tool called Crispr-Cas9, has made it much easier and more efficient to tinker with the genomes
of plants and animals. The first Crispr-edited products will begin reaching the market this year,
and researchers believe it’s only a matter of time before US grocery shelves could be filled with
gene-edited produce, grains and meat.

The technology will be subject to stringent health and environment review, as well as labeling
requirements in the EU, but not in the US. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a
statement last March saying it would not regulate crops whose genetic changes could have

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/crispr-gene-edited-food-technology-us-produce 1/4
30/05/2019 Crispr gene-editing will change the way Americans eat – here's what's coming | US news | The Guardian

been produced with conventional breeding. The European court of justice, by contrast, ruled
last summer that gene-edited crops should be regulated as GMOs.

The scientific challenges have been largely settled – or at least there’s a clear path toward
resolving them, according to scientists in the field. But political and social ones remain.

“The questions outstanding going forward are regulatory and PR and marketing and
commercial launch – the things that matter the most, obviously, outside of the science,” said
Rodolphe Barrangou, a distinguished professor at North Carolina State University and editor-
in-chief of the Crispr Journal.

Crispr technology is still in its infancy. Short for “clustered regulatory interspersed short
palindromic repeats”, Crispr was first used in cells with a nucleus only six years ago. It takes
advantage of the natural immune system of bacteria to make precise cuts in the target genome.
This can be used to delete a few letters, turning a gene off, or dialing it up or down, or it can
force a change in the genetic alphabet, giving the plant or animal new functions. It’s not a
perfect process, but it’s much more precise and easier to work with than previous gene editing
techniques, according to scientists. Researchers say many of these new functions will be
copied from nature, making, say, a hothouse tomato as disease-resistant as a wild one without
sacrificing flavor. But others could be entirely new – and likely to raise more concern.

Unlike genetic modification, gene editing doesn’t require transgenics, the movement of genes
from one species to another. So, if there are dangers to GMO foods – which some, but far from
all scientists believe – gene editing that simply removes genes or copies sequences from similar
species is likely to be safer.

Essentially, gene editing accomplishes what conventional breeding would, just more efficiently
and more easily, according to Zachary Lippman, an expert in the genetics of flowering plants at
the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York. “This is a tool that creates what
nature could create on its own just never got around [to] or had the opportunity to create,” he
said.

Lippman said Crispr is an incredibly useful tool in research, allowing him to ask new questions
of the tomato plants he breeds, by fast-forwarding the research process. “The amount of
genetics that we’re currently able to do has at least quintupled in the last three years,” he said.
It also allows breeders, who have maximized their crops for current conditions, to now ready
their crops for the challenges of climate change, said Lippman, who was recently named an
investigator with the Howard Hughes medical institute.

It could also upend agriculture, boosting the health, shelf life, off-season availability and
transportability of fruits and vegetables, said Haven Baker, chief business officer of Pairwise, a
North Carolina-based startup that uses Crispr technology both to edit large-scale crops like
corn and soy, and specialty crops like berries and snackable vegetables. Baker and the
company’s CEO, Tom Adams, said they would like to see berry plants modified to make them
easier to pick by drone or other machine rather than by hand, bringing down labor costs and
avoiding arduous work. “These are the type of questions we’re thinking about – to really use
Crispr technology not to maybe solve one disease problem, but to really solve the entire
industry’s problems,” Baker said. “We see this as the beginning of a 25-year cycle of innovation
that will greatly improve agriculture around the world.”

Although most Crispr gene editing is still taking place in labs and research greenhouses, the
future he envisions isn’t far off. The first gene-edited products are expected to reach the
market as soon as next year: a soybean oil that has less saturated fat and no dangerous trans

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/crispr-gene-edited-food-technology-us-produce 2/4
30/05/2019 Crispr gene-editing will change the way Americans eat – here's what's coming | US news | The Guardian

fats, from a Minnesota-based company called Calyxt, and an improved variety of waxy corn –
used as a thickener and stabilizer in many food products – from Corteva Agriscience, the
agriculture division of DowDuPont.

But the public and governments around the world are still unsure how to deal with gene-
edited crops and livestock.

Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina
State University, said US consumers are willing to pay 20% more to avoid GMO foods, and
nearly half of the public reports actively avoiding genetically modified ingredients and food.
There hasn’t been much polling data on consumer views of gene-edited foods, because they
are still so new. People may be slightly less concerned with gene edits than with swapping in
genes from distant species, she said, but generally, “I think people are bothered by that
human-controlled laboratory step”.

She also said that she sees industry making many of the same public relations mistakes with
gene editing that they made with GMOs. The industry is fighting labeling and regulation and
not being as transparent as it should be about the challenges and shortcomings of gene editing,
she said and wrote in a recent article.

Public reaction may ultimately drive government regulation – which is not yet a settled issue.
While the USDA has said it would not regulate the technology, the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has suggested it might treat all intentionally edited products as drugs,
which would mean heavy oversight.

If strong government regulations are imposed, gene editing will be finished before it really
begins, said Alison Van Eenennaam, a cooperative extension specialist at the University of
California, Davis. “We can stop having this discussion because we’ll never use it. It’s just
done,” she said. Van Eenennaam said she was frustrated by campaigns that unnecessarily
derailed a lot of the potential of GMOs, and she sees the same thing happening again with gene
editing. “It’s much easier to frighten someone about something,” she said.

Others think government regulation is essential for reining in bad actors and keeping food safe.

Jaydee Hanson, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, a Washington DC-based
advocacy group, wants companies to publicly release a complete genetic sequence of their
Crispr products, so people can look for unintentional mutations and other problems. Now, for
instance, when a potato turns green, that’s a sign it is releasing toxins and shouldn’t be eaten,
he said. But if the green gene were accidentally turned off, potatoes could release toxins
without the warning.

Industry and some academics say these off-target effects can be managed. They happen all the
time in regular breeding and always have, said Bernice Slutsky, senior vice-president of the
American Seed Trade Association, a trade group. Any plant or animal is already the product of
mutations from hundreds of millions of years of evolution, Lippman said.

Hanson said he was also worried that with Crispr, as with many technological advances, most
of the benefits will go to larger, more industrialized farms.

Gene-edited seeds can be patented, meaning the farmer will have to pay more to use them,
which boosts the cost to farmers as well as the sellers, Hanson said.

Even changes that seem to benefit animal welfare are really about profit, Hanson said. Editing
cattle genes to prevent horn growth and the need to de-horn the animals is really “about
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/crispr-gene-edited-food-technology-us-produce 3/4
30/05/2019 Crispr gene-editing will change the way Americans eat – here's what's coming | US news | The Guardian

making it cheaper to have 140,000-head dairies, because it’s one more step you don’t have to
take”, he said. “If you wanted to raise more humane animals, you’d raise animals like the dairy
I used to work at when I was a kid – you’d have 40 animals instead of 140,000 and you’d be
able to know the name of every cow.”

On the flip side, Hanson acknowledges that gene editing could potentially be used to cut down
on the need for pesticides, which put farmers and farm workers at risk. And Van Eenennaam
worries that if rich countries shut down gene editing, poor countries that really need increased
productivity, fewer pesticides and healthier foods won’t be able to benefit.

At this pivotal time…

… for our world, The Guardian is determined to keep delivering factual, independent
journalism that is open to all. We refuse to turn away from the escalating climate crisis –
instead we give reporting on the environment, nature and pollution the prominence it
deserves. And, when progressive ideals are being challenged by those in power across the
globe, we’re committed to investigating with courage and reporting with honesty.

More people are reading and supporting our independent, investigative reporting than ever
before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to
keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But
we need your support to grow our coverage.

The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is
free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or
shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables
us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s
what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest
reporting is critical.

Every contribution we receive from readers like you, big or small, goes directly into funding
our journalism. This support enables us to keep working as we do – but we must maintain and
build on it for every year to come. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes
a minute. Thank you.

Support The Guardian

Topics
Gene editing
Toxic America
Food
Genetics
features

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/30/crispr-gene-edited-food-technology-us-produce 4/4