Episode 345: GMOs in the Garden

Welcome to this week’s episode, where I’m speaking with Pat Thomas, director of Beyond GM, to explore the hidden realities of GMOs, the implications of new precision breeding legislation, and how these changes could affect gardeners, small-scale growers, and our food future.

00:00:30.260 –> 00:00:42.200 SARAH WILSON: From campaigns like Stop Hidden GMOs, to looking at the global landscape regarding GMO policies, Pat offers essential insights and some practical advice on where to learn more and how to take action.

PAT THOMAS: We are a UK-based civil society organization, and our main focus is promoting informed discussion and critical thinking around genetic modification in food and farming, and the wider natural world. So we work to foster public awareness and engagement and influence policy and advocate for transparency, particularly around regulation, which includes making sure that citizen voices are considered in the debate and the decisions around these technologies.

SARAH WILSON: Okay. When did it start and were you the driving force behind it?

PAT THOMAS: Yes. In fact, I have a long history in advocacy around food and environment and health, but Beyond GM itself started in 2014.

SARAH WILSON: Okay. So what is your background in that kind of area?

PAT THOMAS: I come from a journalistic background. I was the editor of the Ecologist magazine for several years, and I’ve worked broadly around those areas as an investigative journalist for some time. And what became really apparent was that environment, health and food all link up when it comes to our own health and planetary health as well.

SARAH WILSON: And you’ve launched a campaign called Stop Hidden GMOs. And what’s that about?

PAT THOMAS: So I may have to give you a tiny bit of history if that’s alright.

SARAH WILSON: Yeah, of course.

02:18:160 –> 02:32:580 PAT THOMAS: So for the last five years, the government, successive governments really now have been working on a deregulatory agenda for genetically modified organisms. And it’s gained really significant momentum since Brexit. And in fact, since that time, this deregulation of genetically modified organisms in our food system and environment has become a real policy priority. And we had, first of all, the Genetic Technology Act, which was the sort of framework for how the government was going to proceed. And then this year in May, we had the Genetic Technology Regulations. These are the regulations that were challenging because they have removed essential safeguards around genetically modified organisms in food and farming, specifically a type of GMO that the government chooses to call precision bred organisms.

03:09:780 –> 03:14:300 And I think it’s really clear, it needs to be clear here that precision bred organisms are GMOs, but they’ve simply been created through a new type of technique called gene editing. And the effect of this deregulatory agenda is really very wide. It affects farmers, it affects businesses and consumers, but it will also affect gardeners, allotment holders, seed savers, because when they become operational, these regulations in November, we lose all right to know whether we’re growing or eating these new genetically modified plants.

03:58:240 –> 04:02:680 So we decided to call the government to account about this and pursue a judicial review to ensure that before the regulations become operational in November, that they are quashed, that a new process is put in place that is responsive to citizen needs and desires around genetic modification, and that they include labeling and transparency from field to fork.

SARAH WILSON: And what is a precision bred organism?

PAT THOMAS: A precision bred organism is a type of genetically modified organism. It’s created using a new technology called gene editing. And what gene editing does is it makes it easier for the developer to target specific areas within the genome that they wish to change. But primarily that precision doesn’t alter the fact that you’re still creating a genetically modified organism.

SARAH WILSON: And are you talking plants or just seeds?

PAT THOMAS: At the moment, we’re talking plants. And that will include seeds and plant materials. In a couple of years’ time, the government has stated that it wants to include genetically modified animals in this as well. And we will, after that, shortly be looking at genetically modified microorganisms as well. But for the moment, these regulations are focused on plants, but not just agricultural plants. They’re focused on all plants. So not just a maze and barley, but also trees and shrubs and flowers and grasses, and even aquatic plants like seaweeds and algaes.

05:17:260 –> 05:19:400 SARAH WILSON: So when you say it affects plants, and so that’s ornamental plants as well as food plants, who is doing this? So I’m going to start there.

PAT THOMAS: So in the UK, a lot of work around genetic engineering is done by our research institutions such as John Innis and Rothamsted and the Sainsbury’s Labs. But of course, there is research and development going on all over the world into a variety of different genetically modified organisms.

SARAH WILSON: And once they’re created, I’m assuming then they are subject to a patent or plant breeder’s rights or, you know, basically, I’m assuming somebody then owns that plant in that form.

PAT THOMAS: Usually genetically modified organisms are subject to patent, because that is a more powerful form of protection for them.

SARAH WILSON: Okay. So that would mean if I bought a tree or a shrub and it was a precision bred organism, then I couldn’t propagate that, I’m assuming.

PAT THOMAS: It would depend on the terms of the GMO. But for the most part, if you’re using a plant that has been genetically modified, you would need to pay the patent holder to use it.

SARAH WILSON: Okay. So if I’m thinking about plants that are capable of open pollination, if I’ve got something that then went to seed in my garden, I collected that seed, is that seed still a precision bred organism?

PAT THOMAS: Yes, it is still a precision bred organism, yes.

SARAH WILSON: Okay. So if I then grow that plant, do I need to pay someone?

PAT THOMAS: Yes, you should. If it’s a patented organism, you should. But again, it depends. So if I might give you an example that might bring it into reality here. Okay. So there’s a real world example of this happening right now in the United States, where a purple tomato created by Norfolk plant scientists has broken new ground by being the first genetically modified food to be targeted specifically at home gardeners. So this is a transgenic tomato. In other words, it was engineered with genes from a non-sexually compatible plant, in this case, a snapdragon, to produce higher levels of anthocyanins in its flesh. Anthocyanins are pigments with antioxidant properties. In 2002, the US cleared these to be sold in the United States. In 2024, seed stales started to home gardeners, aimed specifically at home gardeners.

Within the first week, 10,000 packets were sold. I think overall, in 2024, 13,000 packets of these seeds found their ways into home gardens. Now, this is a patented product, but in this instance, in order to get into the marketplace, the developers have said, you know what, we’re not going to chase this patent. You can grow them and you can propagate them, and we just want to get them out there so people can see how great they are.

08:23:240 –> 08:25:160 It really depends, but with that sort of generous, oh, we won’t pursue a patent, there comes a kind of dark side to it, which is the normalization of people planting and eating genetically modified foods without really understanding whether they are better for them nutritionally, whether they are okay for the environment. None of these tests have been done.

SARAH WILSON: So if it’s higher in antioxidants, then it kind of sounds as if it might be better for somebody who’s eaten the tomato.

PAT THOMAS: Okay, well, that depends. Where’s the evidence to suggest that’s true? And where’s the evidence to suggest that you need to get them from a genetically modified tomato? So for instance, lots of vegetables and fruits are high in anthocyanins and other antioxidants. And therefore, what’s the need here in terms of a genetically modified tomato? And also, of course, there are heritage varieties of purple tomatoes that are also high in anthocyanins.

SARAH WILSON: Well, I mean, that is the question. What is the need? You know, is there some sort of agenda here?

PAT THOMAS: There probably is an agenda. Part of the agenda is to break through a long standing deadlock between people who want to promote genetically modified foods and the wider public, most of whom are against it. And so by not calling them genetically modified, calling them precision bred or something else, makes it sound like it’s not so bad, that it’s not connected to a technology that is highly contested. But I think there are other agendas as well, and they’re hidden from the public. So a lot of these products that appear to be good for you are not really ultimately intended for foods. So this experiment with gardeners in the US is really just an experiment about how the plant grows, whether it can survive in extreme circumstances. For instance, some gardeners have reported that it’s not very good in extreme heat, that sort of thing. But in the background, the same scientists are also developing tomatoes with levels of serotonin, the drug that’s used to treat depression, or levodopa, which is a drug that’s used to fight Parkinson’s. And the real marketplace isn’t home gardeners. Home gardeners are just a stepping stone. The real marketplace is the nutraceutical and pharmaceutical world.

10:29:720 –> 10:31:720 SARAH WILSON: So gardeners kind of are almost like doing the testing in the field, I suppose.

PAT THOMAS: Yes, I think that’s absolutely right.

SARAH WILSON: So if you’ve got something, again, that’s kind of wind pollinated or that is pollinated by insects, and for example, say you’re a small scale grower and you’ve got an organically certified site, is it possible that something from a precision bred organism could get brought onto your property, therefore effectively, for want of a better word, contaminating your organic crops?

PAT THOMAS: I think that’s certainly the case. I think this is a real dilemma for organic producers, because one of the problems with the regulations that we’re challenging is that they deregulate precision bred organisms everywhere, except within the organic certification legislation. And within that legislation, precision bred GMOs are still GMOs and they must be excluded legally from organic. But at the same time, the regulations remove all the tools that organic producers would normally use to trace them through the food system. And so organic producers are left with a real problem here about, can we trust the seed that we have? Can we trust the seedlings that we have? Can we trust that our fields are not contaminated with these things?

SARAH WILSON: And what are the labeling regulations around this?

PAT THOMAS: There are no labeling regulations around these precision bred organisms. So, one of the key factors in the new regulations is that the government refused in spite of organic campaigners, campaigners like ourselves, food safety campaigners saying you must label these things, they refused to label them. So there is no mandate to label these things at all. So you won’t know what you’re buying, you won’t know what you’re growing. There has been a consultation on labeling of seeds. That hasn’t reached a conclusion yet. So we don’t know what the government will do about that. But the likelihood is that it will not require a mandatory labeling of seeds and plant products. Instead, it’s more likely that they will allow the British Society of Plant Breeders to hold a voluntary list.

SARAH WILSON: OK. And do you have any clue of who is likely to be rolling this out amongst their plant ranges once it happens?

PAT THOMAS: No, not yet. I mean, there have been a number of experimental plantings in the UK. The signs from the developers are that the trials that are taking place in England now, there are 25 trials of gene edited barley and wheat around the UK taking place on commercial farms, but in secret locations. In other words, the locations haven’t been divulged. And the purpose of those trials is to multiply seed ready for the market in two years’ time. So that may be the first thing that comes on the market.

SARAH WILSON: Right. Okay. So it will likely happen relatively quickly, I’m guessing.

PAT THOMAS: I think so. As I said, there’s been a number of experimental trials in and around England, one with not with the purple tomato, but with a tomato that contains higher levels of vitamin D. There have been trials on a high omega-3 camelina, a low asparagine wheat, mildew-resistant potatoes, non-browning potatoes, certain brassicas. And the brassicas, of course, are the real risk for cross-pollination. A lot of the things that they’re working on, things like tomatoes, are largely self-pollinating, so that’s not the biggest problem. It wasn’t that long ago earlier this year that the government was talking about gene-edited strawberries. I mean, gene-edited strawberry is the next Wimbledon. So things are moving apace.

SARAH WILSON: Yeah. So rolling it back a bit, at the moment, if we were to buy GMO plants or food especially, is it labelled?

PAT THOMAS: Yes, it’s labelled. There is a requirement to label all GMO foods in the UK. If you were to go into a large supermarket and particularly into the international aisles, you’ll see a lot of American products and they will be labelled contains genetically modified organisms.

SARAH WILSON: Okay. Will that also be removed?

PAT THOMAS: Yes, eventually. That is the government’s stated goal, is to remove it from all GMOs.

SARAH WILSON: Is the argument from you more that you may choose to eat that and that’s fine, but you should have the choice to choose that or not?

PAT THOMAS: I think choice is absolutely essential and not just on safety grounds. I think there’s been a really reductive argument around science says these are safe. Well, actually, science doesn’t say they’re safe because this is a preemptive regulation. So it’s come into force before there are actually any products to test. And it allows developers to self-certify that their products are safe rather than the need to present scientific evidence that that is the case. So there is a question mark over safety, but there’s other question marks as well around environment. For instance, the regulations remove precision bred organisms from the environmental damage regulations, and they also absolve developers of any liabilities. So if anything does go wrong in the future, there’s no one to pursue. And in the meantime, we haven’t really considered that natural ecosystems, you know, even a back garden or a hedgerow are incredibly complex. They evolved over time through millions of interactions between plants and insects and microbes, soil, water, weather, and introducing what is essentially a man-made organism, an organism that hasn’t existed before this time, with traits that couldn’t occur in nature or would take decades to evolve, can really disrupt those relationships. So I’m thinking, for instance, of a gene edited plant with delayed ripening, and how that might confuse pollinators or pests that time their life cycles around flowering or fruiting, a plant engineered to resist disease that might alter the microbial balance of soil or the insects that live on the plant. None of this is being taken into account.

SARAH WILSON: I don’t wish to be a Luddite, but there does seem to be this attitude of launching products and then taking the sort of innocent until proven guilty approach with them. It makes me wonder, obviously, there’s going to be a body of evidence that’s produced by the people who stand to financially gain from these products versus a body of evidence from people who are trying to prove actually once they’re launched that they could be detrimental. I’m thinking of the glyphosate debate. It’s similar to that by the sounds of it. I mean, who is funding research into this to put in checks and balances for these kind of introductions?

PAT THOMAS: You know, a lot of our research institutions in this country are funded by taxpayer money. The minute that the new regulations were launched, the government announced a 12.5 million pound investment in creating more precision bred plants. And that money comes from taxpayers. And yet, we know for a fact, because not only do government polls show it, but our own polls show it as well, that eight in ten people in this country want to see these products labeled so that they can exercise their right to choose. And I think you make a very good point, by the way, about their being released into the environment and then we’ll just see what happens. We’ve had this problem with things like manmade chemicals, for instance, substances that were deemed perfectly safe, such as pesticides or fluorocarbons have turned out to be really disastrous for the living world. And so the idea of waiting until something bad happens to decide that you ought to maybe tighten up the regulations is incredibly irresponsible.

SARAH WILSON: It does seem to be the way of the world. And once the genie is out of the bottle on this one, I’m guessing there’s not going to be any turning back, because once it goes out into the wider environment, then it self-propagates, it self-perpetuates, and the genes presumably, if they’re stronger than anything else that’s out there, will become dominant. Is that fair to say?

PAT THOMAS: I think there’s certainly a risk that they can persist and become dominant in certain ecosystems. Again, it depends on the ecosystem and the plant. For instance, I’m thinking of grasses. If we start genetically engineering or gene editing grasses, grasses spread far and wide, hard to call them back once they’re in the environment. And so again, this is why precaution, which is mandated, by the way, by the Environment Act, should be put into effect.

SARAH WILSON: I mean, many, many people listening to this will have put a great deal of hope in the Labour government. And quite honestly, they’re turning out to be shits on every level regarding the environment and kind of food safety and everything else. Why have they just let this go through so quickly? Have you got any idea about that?

PAT THOMAS: I really don’t. And the great irony, of course, about the Labour government essentially using the regulations that were drafted by the conservatives and then left behind when the general election was called is that during the debates around these regulations and around the act itself, Labour was very vocal in its criticism about this, saying that it was inadequate, that it was vague, that it was hard to enforce, that it needed more input from citizens. We have on our website a whole story devoted to what Labour said should happen. And then when they got in power, it was a complete bolt of fache, they just said, no, we’re just going to use these regulations and we don’t want to talk to anybody about it anymore. So it was incredibly disappointing because actually some of the amendments that Labour proposed for the original act were very, very good and would have significantly strengthened it. And as regards to the new regulations, they just simply pushed them through really quickly.

SARAH WILSON: And out of interest, you mentioned the states, but how do we compare at the moment to the legislation that’s in some other European countries, specifically the EU?

PAT THOMAS: Sure. So first of all, in the US and Canada, there’s quite a liberal regime. They don’t call them precision bred, they call them bioengineered. Every country has its own name for these things that tries to sort of disguise its genetic modification roots. In the EU at the moment, over the last two years, our colleagues there have been looking at a similar deregulatory agenda to the UK, but there’s been much more resistance there for it. It is really unlikely that in the EU, they will simply abandon labelling, for instance. Now, that sets up a real problem for us, because if we have, say, English produced GMOs and the farmers or food businesses want to sell them in the EU, they will have to label them, but they won’t be labelled here. And so this is going to make trading with the EU even more fun than it already is at the moment for a lot of people.

SARAH WILSON: You mentioned that it’s been introduced in November. So what can we do? Anybody who’s listening, can we make any difference to this?

22:44:020 –> 22:48:800 PAT THOMAS: I think there are good arguments and we hope to put them forward in our judicial review. And I think it would be helpful if anybody listening to this today is interested in this. I could certainly recommend that you look at the Stop Hidden GMOs UK website and also at the Beyond GM website which will give you a rather more of a historical look at this. We are running a crowd funder at the moment for the judicial review and I hope that anybody who believes it’s a worthwhile cause will donate to that. But at the same time, you can start asking questions of your seed suppliers. What are they going to do about it? Because actually most people haven’t thought about this. It was introduced relatively quietly and without widespread consultation amongst the businesses that matter.

So you can talk to your seed supplier, you can write to your MP, you can raise this issue in your seed saving groups, in your community gardening groups, and in your allotment and really start thinking about how you will react to this new change in legislation. By the way, this isn’t about being anti-technology, it’s about being pro-transparency and pro-safety and pro-choice and pro-environment. You can still have innovation that doesn’t destroy the environment, but you can only have those things if there’s transparency. I would say get yourself informed, ask questions. I’m always here if people want to ask me questions, I’m easy to get hold of via our various websites. Please do get involved.

23:14:080 –> 23:25:380 SARAH WILSON: Many thanks to Pat for taking the time to share her knowledge, and thanks to you for listening. If you liked today’s episode, you might also want to check out episode 338, Real Organic vs Regenerative Farming, and episode 179, Ecological Gardens with Sid Hill.