Food Allergen Communication in-business feasibility trial

Abstract

Genome editing, also known as gene editing, is one of a group of precision breeding techniques used to develop new varieties of plants and to introduce variation in animals. Plants and animals developed using these techniques can then be used for food. Genome editing in food may be an area of policy divergence now that the UK has left the EU, as the UK government vocally intends to drive change in this area.1The Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) environmental releases legislation (stemming from EU legislation) underpins the current GM food and feed regulations. The Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) holds the lead responsibility for GMO legislation in England and for genome editing which currently falls under it. GMO regulation and policy is devolved in the UK, with the devolved governments having separate legislation. The responsibility of food and feed produced from GMOs is held by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) in Scotland. Under the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland is obliged to align with EU Single Market rules on food and feed, which includes matters related to GMOs.The UK Government disagreed with the 2018 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling that genome edited organisms should be regulated as GMOs even when the outcomes could have been generated by traditional breeding methods.2 There is now interest in reviewing the regulation of genome editing, which requires changing the definition of a GMO in legislation. Defra ran a public consultation from January to March 2021 on genetic technologies including a proposal to change the legislation to amend the definition of a GMO. Defra will use consultation responses to help decide whether to change this legislation in England.3This research project was commissioned to run alongside the Defra consultation, and complements the Defra consultation by gathering evidence on consumer interests 1 Government website page with Boris Johnsons first speech as Prime Minister2 Government consultation page which states the Government’s disagreement with the EJC ruling3 The webpage for the DEFRA consultation on genetic technologies 5 specifically, to help inform future food policy. This research will also help inform communications with consumers if new genome edited food policy is introduced. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct a mixed methods social science research project. The qualitative stage of this research consisted of a series of online deliberative dialogue workshops, bridged by an online community, with 80 consumers across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This was followed by a quantitative online survey of 2,066 consumers representative of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. There is no one definition of genome editing used in the UK, either in legislation nor one that has been agreed by the UK Government, and the FSA recognises that genome editing uses a spectrum of tools and can result in a range of modifications. The definition used for this project covers a specific sub-set of genome editing outcomes and was agreed between internal and external experts for the purpose of the consumer workshops in order to align with the parallel Defra consultation definition. The definition of genome editing used for this study therefore focuses specifically on genome editing in plants and animals that could also be achieved using traditional breeding (referred to as conventional breeding throughout this report).

Towards social acceptability of genome-edited plants in industrialised countries? Emerging evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan

“…Although some authors diagnosed a change in citizen/consumer views on GMO-related topics ( An et al, 2019 ; LIS Consult, 2019 ; Muringai et al, 2020 ; Ipsos MORI, 2021 ; Ortega et al, 2022 ), the empirical studies reviewed in this paper (overview and references provided in Table 4 ) do not support this diagnosis—neither for the adopters nor for the non-adopters. When asked to state preferences, respondents are generally still opposed to GMOs and also opposed to GEOs—although to a lesser extent.…”

“…This comes at a time when a recent online survey among UK residents showed the acceptability of GE plants was a bit higher than of GM plants (49% resp. 44%) ( Ipsos MORI, 2021 ).…”

Genome editing around the globe: An update on policies and perceptions

“…Another survey was conducted in 2021 by The Food Standards Agency as a consumer poll ( The Food Standards Agency, 2021 ). The key findings of this poll were that consumers in the United Kingdom find GEd more acceptable than GM and in general GM or GE applied to plants more acceptable than either of them applied to animals.…”