The ethics of plant and animal applications

While international agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are in place, genetic modification (GM) and, more recently, genome-editing regulations, are governed primarily by national legislation.

This means that each country or territory has the right to decide exactly how it would prefer to use and regulate these technologies. This has led to many differences in the technical legalities between countries, as well as in the general tone and scope of legislation.

According to Dr Hennie Groenewald, CEO of Biosafety South Africa, South Africa has benefited from its early start in the field: it has formulated regulations and used genetically modified organisms (GMOs) since the 1990s.

“Other African countries trying to establish regulatory frameworks after GMOs became more controversial have had to navigate a much more complex environment of inaccurate perceptions and associated political strife. Trying to address the new challenges and opportunities related to genome editing on top of that will therefore be very difficult,” he says.

Efforts have also been taken to protect biodiversity. Groenewald says that genome editing is part of the continuum of breeding practices focused on domesticated animals and crops. The assessment of the potential environmental impact of GMOs, including their possible effect on biodiversity, is a legislated prerequisite to the development and use of such crops or animals.

Various organisations are also making an effort to protect biodiversity. Most breeders and commercial seed companies have their own seed banks to protect genetic material. And, since 2008, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen has served as an international seedbank for seed of significant importance for food and agriculture. The number of seed deposits has increased in that time from 320 549 to 1 057 151, according to vault’s website.