Food production will change in a big way over the next century, as populations increase and demand grows. Here’s how gene editing could help evolve the agricultural industry.
Ever edited a Word document by cutting and pasting different sections, moving things around, and reworking bits and bobs until it’s exactly how you want it?
Gene editing works in a very similar way, except it’s not Word documents that get altered, it’s genomes inside DNA sequences.
Scientists use advanced technology to rework and tinker with the genetic code of organisms, which allows them to create foods with specific qualities tailored to current demand. This innovation will become more widespread and necessary as we go further into this century.
Food demand is estimated to double by 2050 and our soil is rapidly degrading. We’ll have close to 10 billion people on the planet within the next thirty years and feeding everyone adequately will cause tremendous strains on our already delicate and environmentally costly agricultural industry.
So, best to get clued up on gene editing now, eh? Here’s a rundown of how it works, where we could see it used, plus some pros and cons that’ll likely affect our meals in the coming decades. You’ll be an expert after this – that Word document will seem like child’s play in comparison.
Gene editing is exactly what it sounds like – rearranging and changing genetic code.
Every living thing is comprised of genes that house DNA, and these can be altered in small or big ways. So far we know that this process has the potential to create more reliable crop yields, allow foods to resist certain diseases, and help us produce more foods that cater to allergies like gluten and dairy products.
Cuts are made to specific DNA sequences within organisms, affecting their appearance, taste, and behaviors in certain conditions.
One recent, widely used method of gene editing is called CRISPR-Cas9, which matches sequence patterns much faster than older technologies. Check out the video below for a more comprehensive explanation.
Gene editing is not to be confused with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which is the merging of DNA from one species to another. Gene editing is simply altering the patterns already existing within an organism, speeding up a process that would otherwise occur naturally at a slower rate.
What are the benefits?
There are a few obvious, big benefits to altering our food production using gene editing.
First off, yields could be increased significantly and use less land to produce more food. For example, we’ve already created vines that produce twice as many tomatoes, meaning an almost 200% increase in crops using the same amount of space. Potatoes have also been created that bruise less easily.
Our food can also be designed to withstand extreme weather, which will become more common as climate change accelerates. Creating crops that can survive extended droughts and floods is a huge focus for researchers and will be vital if we want to continue feeding our dense population in the coming decades.
Crops will be able to resist disease and pests in the future too, allowing us to reduce the amount of pesticide used around the world. Animals could be edited in a similar way, reducing the risk of disease outbreak among cattle and lowering our dependency on antibiotics.
More efficient farming could reduce costs of agriculture and, in turn, create lower prices for groceries. We could see developing nations edit yields to be more self-efficient without a reliance on multinational firms, opening up the global food market and creating a more balanced system.
What are the pitfalls or cons?
Not everything is hunky dory, however, and there are some drawbacks to consider before we all start trying to cut up the genetic codes in our backyard tomato patch.
A big concern is unintended consequences and knock on effects of altering the DNA of our crops. We don’t know for sure that other animals and species won’t be affected by anything we change, and that farmers won’t start to overstuff their warehouses with cattle as a result of increased efficiency.
Plus, other places along a genome besides the targeted area can be accidentally altered, which could create surprising alterations that were not meant or planned.
Scientists reckon they can manage this through careful regulation and even compare the situation to selective animal breeding. There has been no real rules around mixing genetic codes of animals, and the effects have been minimal.
There’s also the question of ethics. Many worry that the potential to edit and change human DNA could lead to ‘designer babies’, whereby disabilities are removed and only a parent’s ideal body characteristics are created. It becomes a question of ‘playing God’, and some worry that scientists could cause significant human suffering in the case of an accident or unintentional disaster.
Still, nearly all of these issues can be monitored and with thorough regulations they shouldn’t cause too much of a problem when handled by attentive and responsible scientists.
We’ll need to utilize these innovations if we’re to tackle the impending struggles of climate change anyhow, so it’s best to iron out the kinks before it becomes a common and widespread practice.
Onward and upward, one genetic sequence at a time.
I’m Charlie (He/Him), a Senior Remote Writer at Thred. I was previously the Editor at Thred before moving to Bristol in 2024. As a music and gaming enthusiast, I’m a nerd for pop culture. You can find me curating playlists, designing article headline images, and sipping cider on a Thursday. Follow me on LinkedIn and drop me some ideas/feedback via email.
People continue to seek out ‘nudify’ websites to create explicit AI images without a person’s consent. A recent analysis of 85 such platforms revealed that, collectively, they could be making up to $36 million annually.
We’ve been writing about nonconsensual deepfakes for well over seven years now, and the problem doesn’t seem to be deescalating.
Piggybacking the widescale proliferation of generative AI capabilities, illicit websites continue to spawn under the creepy...
A week after Grok’s ‘MechaHitler’ debacle, the US government has announced a $200m contract with the AI platform to modernise the Defense Department.
The chaotic relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is throwing out some ridiculous headlines, and this is just the latest.
If you’re chronically online, like me, you’ll be familiar with Grok’s peculiar crash out last week, in which the chatbot anointed itself ‘MechaHitler’ and generated a...
As global leaders become more concerned about the impact of smartphones on children’s development, many have moved to ban their use in schools. Nearly two years into its own ban, the Dutch government is measuring the results.
It’s no secret that smartphones are addictive, even to adults. The constant buzz of notifications tempts us out of the current moment, out of productivity, and social media apps steal time we’d otherwise...
Bitchat is a decentralised and encrypted chat service able to send and receive messages through Bluetooth signal – and without WiFi or phone service. Will it become an instant hit?
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has just launched a new peer-to-peer massaging app that works without WiFi or phone service.
Bitchat instead utilises a phone’s Bluetooth signal to allow for messages to be sent and received between contacts in the same...
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
0 Comments
