Norway has no so-called genetically modified products (GMO) in food and feed. Good you think? Think again. All leading professional authorities in Norway and elsewhere in the world say that risk-assessed GMO products are as safe and ethically sound as other products. Nevertheless, society pays billions of kroner every year to keep food systems free of GMOs. As mapped in the Genetic Technology Committee’s NOU, GMO-free feed costs the farming industry up to 2 billion extra a year. For agriculture, the sum is around 300 million, heavily subsidized with public funds and maintained by a political line of prohibition. This is hogwash symbolic politics with no real gain. Today’s price may still be a pittance compared to what the restrictive GMO policy will cost in the face of new gene editing technologies such as CRISPR. These can make it faster, easier and safer to develop animals and plants with better health, welfare, climate resistance, nutritional content and other properties that are good for both farmers, animals and society. Norway has a proud breeding tradition with healthy, healthy and productive livestock. The breeding companies are in danger of being left on the platform when international innovators now speed away on the CRISPR train. According to Norwegian and European law, gene-edited products are considered GMOs, even if in practice they are the same as conventional products. This means that the financial costs associated with the approval and production of such products will be insurmountable. In addition, most Norwegian producers will be skeptical about sending products on the market that must be labeled as GMO, since consumers have been told for decades that they should fear these three letters. In most countries outside Europe, however, gene editing is not classified as GMO, and then the rate of innovation and market acceptance is much higher. This is skewed competition to Norway’s disadvantage. Is this a distant future scenario? No. For Norsvin, which develops Norwegian pig genetics for a global market, this is already happening now. Their biggest competitor is developing pigs that are resistant to the disease PRRS – one of the biggest challenges for the global pig industry today. In China, the state is investing heavily in the development of pigs that are resistant to African swine fever, an infectious disease which in one year led to an economic loss of 0.78% of China’s GDP and which is rapidly spreading throughout the world. The national pride Norwegian Red Fe (NRF) may also become history if the breeding company Geno cannot adopt gene editing. Graminor, which develops new plant varieties for Norwegian conditions, wants access to CRISPR to develop a dry rot-resistant potato. Both consumers and potato farmers want it. No wonder when it helps to save the environment from spraying and Norwegian farmers up to NOK 120 million a year. But if it is classified as GMO, it is not relevant for Graminor because it will be too expensive. Then perhaps it will be one of the international developers who deliver gene-edited, dry rot-resistant potato varieties to Norwegian fields before long? But those who are perhaps most at risk are one of Norway’s most important industries: salmon farming. And ironically enough, it may be Norwegian research that contributes to weakening competitiveness. Pioneering CRISPR researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research have developed a gene-edited sterile salmon that cannot interbreed with wild salmon if it escapes. This can solve one of the most important sustainability problems for the industry. This genetically edited salmon also fares just as well as other salmon, in contrast to sterile salmon developed with previous methods, and will very likely be in high demand by the industry. Because this research is financed with public funds and the researchers at the Institute of Marine Research take social responsibility seriously, the findings are both published and publicly available and not patented. But as long as gene-edited salmon is classified as GMO in Norway and Europe, players in other countries will probably be first on the ball. Therefore, do not be surprised if international salmon genetics companies soon come up with a sterile salmon – based on Norwegian research – which puts Norwegian companies under pressure. And it will be even worse if someone finds out why the Pacific salmon is resistant to salmon lice and manages to copy the genetics over to the Atlantic salmon. This is one of the hottest research areas in the CRISPR field today, both in Norway and internationally. Norwegian and European players are thus in danger of losing because their own politicians are setting their sights on them. But this is not only about business interests, but also about taking the scientific consensus seriously. In the Genetic Technology Committee’s NOU, presented on 6 June, the majority recommends a number of regulatory changes to facilitate the safe and sustainable use of genetic technology. Signals indicate that the EU will also now move in a more liberal direction. What is required is political courage and dynamism. It would be much better to swallow a genetically modified camel now than to wait until Norwegian actors are eradicated. The chronicler is a project leader in the Research Cluster NCE Heidner and a member of GENEinnovate, a research collaboration for innovation within Norwegian breeding. The companies mentioned in the text are members of the consortium, but the author writes for his own account.
ttn-69
Pig symbolic politics – Expression
