* TEN-WEEK CONSULTATION BY DEFRA ON GENE EDITING CONCLUDES TOMORROW   * As it stands, genetic modification is banned on all foods sold in the UK * It is expected the consultation will

dispose of this ban and allow gene editing     * Animal rights groups and some scientists oppose the practice due to unknown long-term safety and welfare issues  The UK government is

expected to lift a ban which forbids the cultivation and sale of genetically edited plants and animals, according to reports.   A consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been assessing the ban on the practice and concludes tomorrow.  As it stands, genetic modification is prohibited on all foods sold in the UK and Europe.  However,

sweeter apples and disease-resistant crops like wheat and barley.  Scroll down for video  WHAT IS GENETIC MODIFICATION?  Genetic modification is a technique where faulty or undesirable genes

of a plant or animal are replaced with alternate versions of the same gene which are more beneficial.  This means the best genes for a specific behaviour or trait can be selected for.  For

example, a gene which is related to plumper chickens can be introduced to a population, ensuring all birds get the gene and are subsequently larger, increasing the farmer's profits and

giving customers more nutritional value. The wider principle — selecting for beneficial genes — is the exact same as selective breeding which has done by farmers for centuries.  But

scientists are now lobbying to be allowed to artificially speed up the process in a lab.  Genetic modification is a technique where faulty or undesirable genes of a plant or animal are

replaced with alternate versions of the same gene which are more beneficial.  This means the best genes for a specific behaviour or trait can be selected.  For example, a gene which is

related to plumper chickens can be introduced to a population, ensuring all birds get the gene and are subsequently larger, increasing the farmer's profits and giving customers more

nutritional value. The wider principle — selecting for beneficial genes — is the exact same as selective breeding which has done by farmers for centuries.  But scientists are now lobbying to

be allowed to artificially speed up the process in a lab.  Genome editing is not universally banned around the world, with the US, Australia and Japan among the nations that have approved

the process.  The UK prohibited gene editing in 2018 when the European Court of Justice ruled it was effectively the same as genetic modification (GMOs) and implemented a Europe-wide ban

outlawing the practice outside of scientific experiments.  A DEFRA spokesperson told MailOnline: 'Gene editing has the ability to harness the genetic resources that mother nature has

provided, such as breeding crops that perform better, benefiting farmers and reducing impacts on the environment.  'Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to make

coherent policy decisions on gene editing based on current science and evidence.  'We are committed to proportionate, science-based regulation that protects people, animals and the

environment – and that begins with this consultation.' RELATED ARTICLES The expected move to change the existing legislation would see gene edited animals and plants no longer

categorised as GMOs.    Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are more controversial than gene editing as it involves inserting DNA from another species into an organism. CONCERNS OVER GENE

EDITING IN AGRICULTURE   The RSPCA has released a list of issues with removing the ban on gene editing (GE):  · There is no history of safe and reliable use · Genetic technologies can cause

unpredictable and unintended changes to the genome · Not enough is known about the medium to long term effects on animal health and welfare · The current rules and regulations around GMOs

are still essential for regulating GEs until there is more of a proof of use - now is not the time to consider changing these · There are alternative approaches to achieving the proposed

benefits of genetic technologies e.g reducing food waste, with 12 per cent of all meat and animal products produced globally lost or wasted every year, and improving animal husbandry. · GE

products have been withdrawn from approval in the USA following the Regulator's concerns on the transfer of other genes during the GE process. · GE produced food could be forced onto

supermarket shelves in Scotland and Wales despite those countries objecting to its production and sale An example would be taking the DNA of a gene for drought resistance from one animal —

perhaps a camel — and weaving it into the DNA of a cow so that they can be farmed in areas where they would normally not be able to survive.  Both practices have their critics and their

supporters. The cons are that many perceive it as 'playing God' and the long-term health implications are unknown.  Dr Julia Baines, Science Policy Manager at PETA, told

MailOnline: 'We have no business meddling with the lives of other animals, who don’t consent to our tampering with their genomes to increase their profitability.  'Pigs, cows, and

chickens are intelligent, sensitive, social beings who have their own lives, feelings, and desires and don’t exist for humans to use.  'Experimenters trialling gene editing

Frankenscience subject animal mothers to invasive procedures to extract and manipulate their eggs and then implant the engineered embryos.  'Such experiments are doomed from the start –

plagued with failed pregnancies, sudden deaths, and birth defects.  'Just as genetically editing humans is unconscionable, so is doing so to other animals.  'Editing animals’

genes won't solve world hunger – as a global switch to vegan eating could – and it will lead to misery for animals.'    Dr Penny Hawkins, head of the RSPCA's Animals in

Science team, says allowing gene editing would be a backwards step for animal welfare. 'We have real concerns about gene editing and the animal welfare issues involved,' she said.

  'The impact of these changes to the genome is very unpredictable and there are so many unknowns about the long term impacts of alterations to the animals' genetic material, so

there is a real risk of welfare problems being passed down the generations. 'We are incredibly worried that the Government is considering relaxing the rules around these procedures and,

shockingly, this would also see farm animals categorised with and only given the same level of consideration as farmed crops.' The pros are that gene editing could improve farming and

help feed a swelling global population.  Farmers and scientists tend to be for the move to remove the ban. Tom Bradshaw, vice president of the National Farmers Union, told the i: 'Gene

editing has the potential to offer huge benefits to UK farming and the environment. 'It could help us address pest and disease pressures on our crops and livestock, increasing our

resilience in the event of extreme weather events.' 'We don't think consumers will stand for this and we want as many people as possible to let the Government know their

views.' Gene editing of any variety in humans is illegal around the world, and this review will not touch on that topic. Experts have previously said gene editing is not yet ready for

human applications.   The topic of gene editing embryos to 'customise' a baby has been at the forefront of science since the shock announcement in 2017 that a rogue scientist in

China had used the powerful gene-editing tool Crispr on a pair of twin girls. He Jiankui was internationally condemned for gene-editing twin girl Lulu and Nana when he blatantly flouted the

existing legislation.  The powerful tool CRISPR-Cas9 was used to snip away a section of their DNA and replaced with a HIV-resistant variant. GENOME EDITING IS NOT YET READY TO BE TRIED

SAFELY IN HUMANS, SCIENTISTS WARN  Editing the genes of embryos is not yet safe for humans, according to a report published by the world's leading experts in fertility, ethics and

biology.  Germline gene editing is a process where faulty, diseased, or undesirable genes in an embryo, sperm of egg are removed, altered or replaced by scientists.  This system is extremely

powerful and the changes made are not only permanent, but will be passed down the generations.  However, this landmark report says not enough is known about the safety or precision of the

process for it to be trialled in humans.  Advocates of human germline genome editing are pushing for the procedure to be investigated, as it has the ability to allow babies destined to

inherit life-threatening conditions to be born disease-free.  The topic of gene editing embryos to 'customise' a baby has been at the forefront of science since the shock

announcement in 2018 that a rogue scientist in China had used the powerful gene-editing tool Crispr on a pair of twin girls.  Currently, editing the DNA of a human embryo is not allowed in

the US, thanks to a 2017 ruling by the international committee of the National Academy of Sciences.  Crispr-based experiments on human embryos were approved in the UK in 2016 with the

stipulation they are never transplanted to create a pregnancy and must be destroyed after a week.  Since the invention and development of Crispr-Cas9 around 15 years ago, a prevailing

problem has been a lack of understanding of how safe the procedure is in the long-term. The definitive response provided by the report is that these questions can not be safely answered and

therefore it can not be approved for human use. The report has been published by the US National Academy of Medicine, US National Academy of Sciences, and the UK's Royal Society.