Supermarket shelf still a long way off for gene-edited pork chops

Using a precise cut of the CRISPR/Cas9 DNA scissors, international pig breeding company PIC has succeeded in making pigs resistant to the PRRS virus, which causes ‘blue abortion’. Precision breeder Acceligen is also producing PRRS-resistant pigs and is working on resilient cattle and farmed fish. The company previously received FDA approval for a more heat-tolerant cow. In a number of South American and Asian countries, the modified animals are already permitted to be bred, but as far as is known, there is nowhere yet a gene edited steak or pork chop on a shop shelf.

Hans Nauwynck, Professor of Virology at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in Ghent, is following the development with great interest. Over ten years ago, he was the first to demonstrate that a cut in the CD163 protein prevents viral infection, though he is not involved in the development of the resistant pigs. Should the resistance prove durable, he believes this discovery will go down in the history books, as the PRRS virus causes a great many sick animals and significant antibiotic use. He considers the chances of resistant pigs roaming around Europe in the near future to be very slim, however. ‘The EU is increasingly becoming the blank spot on the map when it comes to applications of genetic technology in food.’

No cross-species modification

Nevertheless, there is now an EU initiative law to regard gene editing as a new genomic technique (NGT) and thus regulate it differently from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Under consideration is an NGT1 category for gene edited crops that could also be produced through conventional breeding and may therefore be treated as ‘ordinary’ crops. And an NGT2 category for crops with modifications that first require a (limited) risk assessment.

‘It is enormously complicated to get all countries on the same page’

Franck Meijboom, Utrecht University

The United Kingdom is ahead of the EU in this regard. Last month, a law on precision breeding was approved there. The legislation permits the cultivation of gene edited crops where no cross-species changes are involved. Examples include tomatoes enriched with vitamin D and apples that do not turn brown after peeling. These were created by duplicating or activating genes. Animals are not covered by this new law, however. And EU negotiations, too, concern only gene edited plants. Ethicist Franck Meijboom, Professor of sustainable animal stewardship at Utrecht University, doubts whether the EU will follow the UK’s lead. ‘We have already had a lengthy debate in Europe about permitting cisgenesis — genetic modifications within the same species. But that proposal did not succeed.’

Scientists and industry are often far more enthusiastic about genetic technology than the general public, Meijboom emphasises. Scientists view gene editing as something new, but the average citizen sees it as ‘more of the same’. It therefore does not lead to any political shift. A 2023 research report from the Rathenau Institute confirms this picture. Representative groups of Dutch citizens discussed gene editing in crops. They were ‘cautious and hesitant’, doubted whether gene editing would truly offer a solution, and regard ‘naturalness’ as an important value. Gene editing is frequently seen as a quick technofix ‘that does not really solve the underlying social problem’.

Animal welfare

The fact that gene edited pigs do not fall ill would appear to represent a significant contribution to animal welfare. Will that not win people over? Michelle Habets, senior researcher at the Rathenau Institute: ‘Animal health is certainly important, but people regard animal welfare in intensive livestock farming as poor. Gene editing does not resolve that. There is a great deal of distrust of large companies. Are they not more interested in profit than animal welfare?’

‘The gene pool has been considerably reduced by the emphasis on production’

Hans Nauwynck, UGent

Meijboom contributed to European research into the desirability of gene editing in animals across four countries: Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Slovenia. In the Netherlands, citizens placed the development in the context of the manure problem and intensive livestock farming; French participants put food quality centre stage, whilst in Slovenia considerable attention was paid to native breeds. ‘The northern countries were somewhat more positive than the southern ones, but I foresee no majority. It is enormously complicated to get all countries on the same page given the many cultural differences.’

Nauwynck recently launched research into the possibility of making pigs more resilient to viruses through conventional breeding techniques. ‘The question is whether we have not come to this too late. The gene pool has been considerably reduced over recent decades due to the emphasis on production.’ This makes the sector vulnerable and could give foreign livestock farmers who protect their animals through gene editing a significant economic advantage, Nauwynck argues. ‘Gene editing could thus become a necessity.’ Meijboom points to the many pig breeds outside intensive livestock farming. ‘In Spain you have the Celtic pig. They roam outdoors year-round and can take a knock.’ In terms of productivity, however, they represent a step backwards. Is that economically viable? ‘It is, when the sector can put health and welfare first and build from there,’ Meijboom believes. ‘And that depends on choices we Europeans make — in practice, that comes down to politics.’

‘That way you run the risk of citizens feeling ambushed’

Michelle Habets, Rathenau Institute

The current European negotiations on gene editing do not yet appear to be generating much public debate. Habets finds this concerning. ‘That way you run the risk of citizens feeling ambushed when gene edited crops “suddenly” appear on supermarket shelves. That could fuel distrust in the government.’