“We know domestic and international consumers will want to educate themselves on this technology, but it is important to note there is no mechanism to track or segregate this product through supply chains,” the Canadian Pork Council said in a March 3 statement.

Given the challenges of labelling, the council said it supports work to gain public acceptance for pork from these gene edited pigs.

In January, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency gave the green light to pigs developed by U.K.-based Genus PLC and PIC (Pig Improvement Company), ruling them safe for food and feed. The pigs have been gene edited to resist porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).

Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada also said that environmental and human health risks were no different than with pigs currently available. The CFIA and Health Canada also found no difference in nutritional value, according to a Jan. 23 news release.

Pork from gene edited pigs won’t require special labelling because Health Canada found no health and safety concerns.

Calls for mandatory labelling

However, some agriculture and consumer groups are calling for mandatory labelling of foods produced through gene editing and genetic engineering — including pork from the PRRS-resistant pigs and genetically engineered tomatoes recently approved in Canada.

In a letter to Health Minister Marjorie Michel, a group of organizations including the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) said mandatory labelling should be “urgently” implemented. It cited the recent approval of the pigs and tomatoes, and the imminent closure of the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB).

“Health Canada has committed ‘to the highest level of transparency’ relating to the genetically engineered pig. We support this goal but require clarification on how you will accomplish this promised transparency,” the letter says.

Health Canada has been working with that board since November on a public review of the National Standard for labelling and advertising regarding foods produced with genetic engineering. However, it was announced in the 2025 federal budget that the board would wind down activities.

“The CGSB is currently developing a transition plan to ensure reliable continuity and minimize disruption for partners and interested parties,” the government’s website says.

The letter does not specify what the groups’ concerns are about gene edited and genetically engineered foods. CBAN’s website says that GM foods are “approved for human consumption based on company-produced science” and that “there are very few long-term independent tests on GM foods.”

Organic groups have also called for mandatory labelling of gene edited crops, due to concerns about cross contamination. Canadian organic standards don’t allow for crops or animals bred with forms of genetic engineering.

The post No way to segregate gene edited pigs Canadian Pork Council says as groups call for labeling appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has deemed these pigs, developed by U.K.-based Genus PLC and PIC (Pig Improvement Company), safe for use in food and feed.

Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada also ruled that environmental and human health risks were no different than with pigs currently available. The CFIA and Health Canada also found no difference in nutritional value, according to a Jan. 23 news release.

Matt Culbertson, PIC’s Chief Operating Officer, called it a milestone.

“We have spent years conducting extensive research, validating our findings and working with the Canadian government to gain approval,” he said in a Jan. 23 news release.

The Canadian pork sector attributes $130 million in annual losses to PRRS, which can cause fever, breathing problems, stillborn piglets and death.

No special label required

Genus PLC doesn’t intend to sell the PRRS resistant pigs until further regulatory authorization in other key markets, the federal government said.

“We are committed to the responsible and intentional introduction of the PRRS-resistant pig around the globe. Gaining approval in Canada is an important step in this process, and we are working with additional countries to gain regulatory approval and protect global trade prior to initiating sales and delivery,” said Culbertson.

The pigs have been permitted for food use in the U.S., Brazil, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic.

The gene edited pigs won’t require special labelling because Health Canada found no health and safety concerns.

“There is a transparency crisis in our food system,” said CBAN co-ordinator Lucy Sharratt. “If the government is going to allow companies to produce genetically engineered animals and plants, these foods have to be labelled for consumers.”

Organic groups and companies have also raised concerns over the lack of mandatory labelling for foods from gene-edited plants and animals.

Health Canada has been working with the Canadian General Standards Board since November on a public review of the National Standard for Labelling and Advertising of Foods.

According to a 2025 study from PIC, consumers will accept gene edited meat so long as they are educated on the reasoning and how it works.

The post Gene edited, PRRS resistant pig approved in Canada appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Canada’s national standard for companies to voluntary label genetically modified foods is currently open for public review. Part of that involves comment on how gene editing should be defined within the standard and where they do, or do not, fit in the rules.

The federal consultation is accepting comments until Jan. 23.

WHY IT MATTERS: Canada has already ruled that gene-edited plants don’t need to meet the stricter threshold that genetically modified plants do to be approved for cultivation (as long as there’s no foreign DNA involved), and that gene-edited crops are safe for livestock feed. Now, the topic is entering the food labelling arena.

The standard in question is formally titled CAN/CGSB-32.315 Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods That Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering. It provides guidance on how food companies may decide to mark packaging as to whether products are or are not, products of genetic engineering. This standard is maintained by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB).

Canada does not require genetically engineered or gene-edited foods to be labelled differently from other foods, according to the federal government’s website. Claims are voluntary, although they must be truthful and not misleading under the Food and Drugs Act and related regulations.

According to the Standards Council of Canada, the purpose of the voluntary labelling standard is to provide a framework for truthful labelling, not to create mandatory requirements.

Edited versus modified

Industry groups such as the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA) have noted that the federal government’s current proposal would draw a line between gene editing and genetic modification —similar to Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s take on the subject in recent years. Seed and feed guidance in recent years have put gene-edited plants on largely the same regulatory ground as conventionally bred crops, unless foreign genetic material is being incorporated, in which case they’re back to needing a pre-market safety assessment and authorization before they hit the farmer’s field.

Those decisions have drawn ire from the organic sector, worried about contamination with their crops, and praise from much of the rest of the seed sector as a gateway to faster innovation and variety development.

The CHFA, meanwhile, says the new label proposal could allow foods made with gene-editing techniques to be marketed as not genetically engineered, despite gene editing being a form of genetic modification in scientific terms.

In a CHFA report released in October, the association argued that a majority of Canadians surveyed by the study believed gene editing is a form of genetic engineering and that labelling should disclose its use.

The post GMO food labelling review opens questions on gene editing appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Selling genetically engineered seeds to home gardeners is reckless and could jeopardize our ability to provide customers with organic and other non-GE choices,” said Mel Sylvestre, an organic farmer from Gibsons, B.C., in a statement from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN).

CBAN has been vocally critical against GMOs and gene editing in foods.

This August, U.S.-based Norfolk Healthy Produce received Health Canada’s approval to bring The Purple Tomato to Canada. The tomato has had traits from snapdragons added to its genetic makeup. This causes its deep purple colour and increases the amount of an antioxidant called anthocyanin.

Contamination fears

CBAN coordinator Lucy Sharrat said that as of Dec. 2, seeds for the purple tomato were listed in Norfolk’s online seed store but were marked as sold out. On Dec. 18, the seeds appeared to no longer be listed.

The fear is that if genetically modified produce is widely grown across Canada, this will raise the risk of contaminating other varieties. This is a problem for organic farmers, who cannot grow genetically-modified crops under the Canadian Organic Standards.

Organic groups have also said cross-contamination concerns could lessen the standards’ credibility and hamper export opportunities.

CBAN is calling for mandatory labelling of genetically-engineered seeds as is the Canadian Organic Trade Association.

“With no GE garden seeds previously on the market in Canada, gardeners may not expect these seeds to be GE and would not have clear indications that identify them as GE at the point of purchase,” said the association’s executive director Tia Loftsgard in a statement.

On its website, Norfolk Healthy Produce frequently calls its plants “bioengineered,” which is in keeping with U.S. labelling conventions according to a ‘frequently asked questions’ page. Its seeds are currently only for sale on its website, it said.

Seed sovereignty

CBAN said the introduction of genetically-engineered seeds could also threaten the ability of growers to save seeds and cultivate heritage varieties.

“Our customers want to buy the seeds we’ve nurtured on our farm, not patented seeds from corporate laboratories,” said Kim Delaney, founder of Hawthorn Farm Organic Seeds in Mount Forest, Ontario.

“We should reinforce our local seed systems and reject genetically engineered seeds from U.S. and multinational biotechnology companies. Canadian seed sovereignty should be a priority for all levels of government.”

“We don’t need or want genetic engineering in our gardens,” Delaney added. “We already have many good varieties of purple tomatoes.”

A group of 163 farmers signed a statement in opposition to the sale of genetically-engineered or gene-edited seeds to Canadian gardeners and small growers.

The post Selling GMO tomato seeds to Canadian gardeners ‘reckless’ say advocates appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This decision is regarding the regulation of food derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloned cattle, swine and their offspring.

WHY IT MATTERS: Canadian consumers made it clear they are not ready to see foods from cloned cattle and swine on the grocery store shelves.

Health Canada’s announcement to indefinitely pause its proposed update is based on the volume and nature of feedback from industry stakeholders as well as public pushback. Public dissenters have said Canadians could soon be eating cloned beef and pork without knowing it. Health Canada said there are currently no approved foods from cloned products on the market in Canada.

DuBreton, North America’s leading suppliers of organic pork, approved the decision.

A recent survey by duBreton, which is based in Quebec, concluded that 74 per cent of consumers are concerned about gene-edited pork in their food supply.

“Canadians expect clarity, transparency and meaningful consultations on issues that directly touch their food supply,” duBreton president Vincent Breton said in a press release in late November.

“As producers, we consider it our responsibility and believe our governing food authorities should too.”

Canadian organic standards don’t allow gene-edited crops, livestock or other material to be used in production.

DuBreton has been active in leading the charge against the use of SCNT technologies and is opposed to gene editing in livestock production.

Gene-editing technologies are not included in the pause to the novel food policy and are still under active regulatory consideration. Discussion and potential approvals for meat derived from gene-edited livestock that could enter the Canadian market continue, despite clear and overwhelming public concern.

The cloned-animal, novel food pause underscores the importance of producer and consumer engagement in food policy.

In September 2025, duBreton called for transparency around pork from gene-edited pigs if the pigs should ever be approved for the Canadian market.

“Without enforceable standards and transparent labelling, consumers cannot be certain the pork they purchase hasn’t been altered through genetic engineering,” said Breton in an Aug. 27 news release.

This past summer, the federal government completed public consultation around the regulation of pigs resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome due to gene editing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the pigs for use in the American food supply early in 2025, announcing gene edits are safe for pigs and for humans who consume pork.

The post Ottawa pauses update on food from cloned livestock appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Researchers at the university used CRISPR gene editing technology to increase a naturally-occurring chemical that allows the wheat to fix nitrogen according to a November 25 report from ScienceDaily.

WHY IT MATTERS: Nitrogen fertilizer is an enormous cost for Canadian farmers — not to mention a source of tension due to potential environmental impacts.

“For decades, scientists have been trying to develop cereal crops that produce active root nodules, or trying to colonize cereals with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, without much success. We used a different approach,” said Eduardo Blumwald in the report.

Blumwald is a distinguished professor in the University of California, Davis plant sciences department.

“We said the location of the nitrogen-fixing bacteria is not important, so long as the fixed nitrogen can reach the plant, and the plant can use it.”

Researchers, led by Blumwald, examined 2,800 chemicals that plants make naturally and identified 20 that could encourage nitrogen-fixing bacteria to form biofilms, the report said.

Biofilms are sticky coatings that wrap around the bacteria and produce a low-oxygen environment suitable for nitrogen fixation.

The team identified the genes involved in the process of making these biofilms. They then edited the wheat plants to create more of the related compound, called apigenin. The plants produce more apigenin than they need and the excess is released into the soil.

In experiments, the surplus stimulated soil bacteria to protective biofilms that allowed them to fix nitrogen in a form usable to the wheat plants.

Blumenwald noted that about 500 million acres are planted with cereals in the U.S.

“Imagine, if you could save 10 per cent of the amount of fertilizer being used on that land,” he said. “I’m calculating conservatively: That should be a savings of more than a billion dollars every year.”

The advancement could also support farmers in developing countries.

“In Africa, people don’t use fertilizers because they don’t have money, and farms are small, not larger than six to eight acres,” Blumwald said. “Imagine, you are planting crops that stimulate bacteria in the soil to create the fertilizer that the crops need, naturally. Wow! That’s a big difference!”

The university has a pending patent application for the wheat. Bayer Crop Science provided some of the research funding.

The post California researchers create nitrogen-fixing wheat appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This decision is regarding the regulation of food derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloned cattle, swine and their offspring.

Health Canada’s announcement to indefinitely pause its proposed update is based on the volume and nature of feedback from industry stakeholders as well as public pushback. Public dissenters have said Canadians could soon be eating cloned beef and pork without knowing it. Health Canada said there are currently no approved foods from cloned products on the market in Canada.

DuBreton, North America’s leading suppliers of organic pork, approved the decision.

A recent survey by duBreton, which is based in Québec, concluded that 74 per cent of consumers are concerned about gene-edited pork in their food supply.

“Canadians expect clarity, transparency and meaningful consultations on issues that directly touch their food supply,” duBreton president Vincent Breton said in a press release in late November.

“As producers, we consider it our responsibility and believe our governing food authorities should too.”

Canadian organic standards don’t allow gene-edited crops, livestock or other material to be used in production.

DuBreton has been active in leading the charge against the use of SCNT technologies and is opposed to gene editing in livestock production.

Gene-editing technologies are not included in the pause to the novel food policy and are still under active regulatory consideration. Discussion and potential approvals for meat derived from gene-edited livestock that could enter the Canadian market continue, despite clear and overwhelming public concern.

The cloned-animal, novel food pause underscores the importance of producer and consumer engagement in food policy.

In September 2025, duBreton called for transparency around pork from gene-edited pigs if the pigs should ever be approved for the Canadian market.

“Without enforceable standards and transparent labelling, consumers cannot be certain the pork they purchase hasn’t been altered through genetic engineering,” said Breton in an Aug. 27 news release.

This past summer, the federal government completed public consultation around the regulation of pigs resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome due to gene editing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the pigs for use in the American food supply early in 2025, announcing gene edits are safe for pigs and for humans who consume pork.

The post Feds pause update on food from cloned livestock appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Without enforceable standards and transparent labelling, consumers cannot be certain the pork they purchase hasn’t been altered through genetic engineering,” said duBreton president Vincent Breton in an Aug. 27 news release.

This summer, the federal government completed public consultation around regulation of pigs that are resistant to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) due to gene editing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the pigs for use in the American food supply earlier this year, saying the edits are safe for pigs and for humans who consume pork.

However, according to a duBreton survey, 74 per cent of consumers are “concerned about gene-edited pork in their food supply and demand total transparency,” the news release said.

The problem of PRRS

The company behind the porcine gene editing technology has different numbers.

Survey results released by the Pig Improvement Company in early 2025 found that, following being given a description of both gene editing and the PRRS-resistant pig, almost half (49 per cent) of the surveyed were positive or very positive about the concept, 38 per cent were neutral and only 14 per cent were negative.

PRRS is among the disease issues that the pork sector would love beat out of their barns, particularly in breeding and farrowing operations, where the disease hits at an animal’s reproductive ability and causes stillbirths, mumified piglets, abortions and, in general, a steeper rate of piglet mortality.

Clear standards

Pork company duBreton sells three lines of pork, according to its website: organic, humanely raised, and raised without antibiotics. It also holds certifications like Certified Humane Raised and Handled, and Global Animal Partnership.

The Canadian organic standards don’t allow gene-edited crops, livestock or material to be used in production. However, duBreton has been seeking clarity from other certification bodies and calling for them to take a clear stance against gene-edited pigs.

“Not being clear to the consumer and not giving him a chance to make a choice is wrong,” Breton said in an interview.

“We’ve not necessarily went to requesting a ban (on the use of gene editing), but at least, I mean, consumers should be aware.”

Breton said government-mandated labelling would be preferred, but at very least they’re looking to other certification bodies to take a stance against gene-edited animals.

Organic sector concerns

The Canadian organic sector has previously decried the lack of mandated transparency and traceability for gene-edited crops.

Health Canada deemed gene-edited crops safe for the food supply in 2022, and the CFIA released its guidance the next year. Federal guidance put most gene-edited crops on the same plane as conventionally bred varieties, as long at there’s no foreign DNA involved. No special labelling is required, though the government pledged a transparency steering committee and database.

A significant portion of the organic sector’s concern revolved around contamination of organic food supplies — for instance, due to cross-pollination or inadvertent purchasing of gene-edited seed varieties.

It argued that if it couldn’t guarantee food was free from gene-edited materials, it would lose credibility with consumers and trading partners.

Less risk of contamination

In the case of gene-edited livestock, the risk of cross-contamination is lower with livestock than with crops said Karen Murchison, executive director of Canadian Organic Growers.

Animals are less mobile than seed crops and are easier to track, Murchison said. However, the Canadian Organic Growers would still like to see mandatory labelling within the supply chain.

“We cannot see that livestock move into our production system,” she said. “Again, it’s really about that transparency and labelling.”

Breton said that since duBreton is largely vertically integrated, inadvertent use of edited genetics isn’t much of a risk for them. They can request guarantees from their genetic suppliers.

However, he said if certification bodies don’t take a firm stance on gene editing in their protocols, meat sold under those labels could include gene-edited pork.

It could confuse consumers or dilute claims like “natural,” he said.

“Here I have a natural product at a dollar a pound less, and I have this Certified Humane. What’s the real difference? … They can’t become specialists on everything they eat.”

The post Canadian company calls for transparency on gene-edited pigs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Without enforceable standards and transparent labelling, consumers cannot be certain the pork they purchase hasn’t been altered through genetic engineering,” said duBreton president Vincent Breton in an Aug. 27 news release.

This summer, the federal government completed public consultation around regulation of pigs that are resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) due to gene editing.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the pigs for use in the American food supply earlier this year, saying the edits are safe for pigs and for humans who consume pork.

However, according to a duBreton survey, 74 per cent of consumers are “concerned about gene-edited pork in their food supply and demand total transparency,” the news release said.

Clear standards

DuBreton sells three lines of pork, according to its website: organic, humanely raised, and raised without antibiotics. It also holds certifications like Certified Humane Raised and Handled, and Global Animal Partnership.

The Canadian organic standards don’t allow gene-edited crops, livestock or material to be used in production. However, duBreton has been seeking clarity from other certification bodies and calling for them to take a clear stance against gene-edited pigs.

“Not being clear to the consumer and not giving him a chance to make a choice is wrong,” Breton said in an interview.

“We’ve not necessarily went to requesting a ban (on the use of gene editing), but at least, I mean, consumers should be aware.”

Breton said government-mandated labelling would be preferred, but at very least they’re looking to other certification bodies to take a stance against gene-edited animals.

Organic sector concerns

The Canadian organic sector has previously decried the lack of mandated transparency and traceability for gene-edited crops.

Health Canada deemed gene-edited crops safe for the food supply in 2022, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency released its guidance the next year. Federal guidance put most gene-edited crops on the same plane as conventionally bred varieties.

No special labelling is required, though the government pledged a transparency steering committee and database.

A significant portion of the organic sector’s concern revolved around contamination of organic food supplies — for instance, due to cross-pollination or inadvertent purchasing of gene-edited seed varieties.

It argued that if it couldn’t guarantee food was free from gene-edited materials, it would lose credibility with consumers and trading partners.

Less risk of contamination

In the case of gene-edited livestock, the risk of cross-contamination is lower with livestock than with crops said Karen Murchison, executive director of Canadian Organic Growers.

Animals are less mobile than seed crops and are easier to track, Murchison said. However, the Canadian Organic Growers would still like to see mandatory labelling within the supply chain.

“We cannot see that livestock move into our production system,” she said. “Again, it’s really about that transparency and labelling.”

Breton said that since duBreton is largely vertically integrated, inadvertent use of edited genetics isn’t much of a risk for them. They can request guarantees from their genetic suppliers.

However, he said if certification bodies don’t take a firm stance on gene editing in their protocols, meat sold under those labels could include gene-edited pork.

It could confuse consumers or dilute claims like ‘natural,’ he said.

“Here I have a natural product at a dollar a pound less, and I have this Certified Humane. What’s the real difference? … They can’t become specialists on everything they eat.”

The post Quebec pork company calls for transparency around gene-edited pigs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

But these five 10-month-olds are the world’s first genetically edited horses: cloned copies of a prize-winning horse named Polo Pureza, or Polo Purity, with a single DNA sequence inserted using CRISPR technology with the aim of producing explosive speed.

Kheiron Biotech, the Argentine company that created the horses, says gene-editing has the potential to revolutionize horse breeding.

While cloning creates a genetically identical copy, CRISPR functions as a sort of genetic scissors to cut and customize DNA.

The company, which specializes in equine cloning, used CRISPR to reduce the expression of the myostatin gene, which limits muscle growth. The idea was to increase the muscle fibers that allow for powerful movements and so transform the horses into sprinters.

But polo isn’t letting them in so fast.

While Argentina, regarded as the global capital of polo, has long welcomed reproductive technologies – including cloning – to breed elite horses, the sport’s national body and breeding association are putting up hurdles to prevent GE horses from joining the game.

The Argentine Polo Association has banned GE horses from competition.

“I wouldn’t like them to play polo,” said Benjamin Araya, the association’s president. “This takes away the charm, this takes away the magic of breeding. I like to choose a mare, choose a stallion, cross them, and hope that it will turn out very well.”

And the Argentine Association of Polo Horse Breeders told Reuters it will monitor the horses for four or five years before making a decision on whether to register them as Argentine polo ponies.

Kheiron said it was confident the polo community would eventually come around. “The truth is that I’m not so worried about it,” Gabriel Vichera, the company’s scientific director, told Reuters. “Educating, I think that’s what we have to keep doing.”

It’s unclear how the sport’s national body would enforce a ban. Argentine regulations do not distinguish between cloned, GE and conventionally bred horses and neither does the polo association.

Some breeders said that while they appreciate how clones can help preserve the bloodlines, gene-editing goes too far and could threaten their business.

The $800,000 horse

“This ruins breeders,” said Marcos Heguy, a breeder and former professional polo player. “It’s like painting a picture with artificial intelligence. The artist is finished.”

Eduardo Ramos, who began breeding in the 70s, said that breeders had also been skeptical at first of other advances in biotech, such as embryo transplants and cloning.

“Science and technology will keep advancing,” he said. “Those who say this shouldn’t be done won’t be able to stop it.”

Polo, which originated in Central Asia, was brought to Argentina by British immigrants, who founded the first polo club in Buenos Aires in 1882. It’s somewhat like hockey on horseback, where two teams of four people each sweep long mallets to drive a ball through goal posts.

It’s expensive – players ride as many as a dozen horses per game – and in Argentina, wealthy land-owning families have traditionally dominated the sport.

The country exported about 2,400 polo horses last year, according to government data, and the Argentine polo breed dominates prestigious competitions like the Queen’s Cup in England and the Argentine Open.

The sport has long used surrogates to carry embryos of polo-playing horses. And unlike horse racing, polo allows cloned animals.

The world’s first cloned horse was born in 2003. Adolfo Cambiaso, widely considered the world’s top player, helped popularize polo clones. When a clone of Cambiaso’s prized Cuartetera sold at an auction in 2010 for $800,000, the amount caught the attention of Vichera, then a biotech doctoral student.

Vichera went on to co-found Kheiron the next year with backing from businessman Daniel Sammartino. Its first cloned horse was born in 2013.

Cloned horses weren’t an easy sell at first. To get going, Sammartino said he provided free cloning services to top breeders, who allowed him to keep some of the newborn clones in exchange. By this year, the company says it will produce 400 clones, more than half of all the cloned horses born in Argentina in 2025, according to the breeders’ association’s estimates.

The cloned foals sell for an average of $40,000, Sammartino said.

In 2017, the Kheiron lab used CRISPR genetic editing to produce nine GE horse embryos for research purposes.

That upset some prominent figures in Argentina’s polo world who visited the government’s biotech regulator, concerned about the possibility of gene-edited horses entering the sport, said Martin Lema, who headed the agency at the time.

For the next few years, Kheiron said the lab focused on other animals, producing gene-edited cows and pig embryos designed for human transplants.

Then late last year in the gaucho town of San Antonio de Areco – where farm hands still wear berets in traditional cowboy culture – Kheiron’s birthing clinic produced the five GE foals.

Plans paused

Argentina’s biotech regulator verified the DNA edit, according to a government document reviewed by Reuters. The department of agriculture, which oversees the agency, declined to comment.

About 50 breeders signed on to a letter to the breeders’ association that said the gene-edited horses were “crossing a limit” and asked not to register the horses without “a profound reflection on where we want to go.”

Although Santiago Ballester, the president of the association, said he personally has “no problem” with genetically edited horses, he acknowledged the concerns of fellow breeders about how gene-editing would affect their business, and whether countries that import Argentine polo horses would accept gene-edited ones.

The association decided to tread cautiously.

“Let’s be careful, responsible,” Ballester said. “We have to see what impact these horses will have, if they are really superior animals. If they are normal, who is going to pay money for this?”

Ted Kalbfleisch, a geneticist at the University of Kentucky’s Gluck Equine Research Center, said that Kheiron’s insertion of a natural DNA sequence simply sped up traditional modifications, which can take several generations.

“Where things get sketchy is when you’re trying to maybe make edits you’re guessing about,” he said. But with myostatin, scientists edited “a gene that we know is present in healthy horses. When they take that and edit it into a clone, provided they do it faithfully… it ought to work.”

Although Kalbfleisch said that gene-edited horses may have an advantage in polo tournaments, it’s not necessarily an unfair one.

“This technology, the cloning and the gene editing, are pretty well democratized right now,” he said. “If you can write a check you can get it done.”

The horses still have a ways to go before they hit the polo field. At age two, they’ll start easing into a saddle. A year or two later, they’ll begin learning polo.

But Sammartino admitted that plans to commercialize their gene-editing service are on hold until the polo authorities are on board. The pause has frustrated Sammartino, who said he had been contacted by a dozen potentially interested clients in Argentina, though he declined to put Reuters in contact with them, citing privacy reasons.

Even so, Sammartino acknowledged that an element of uncertainty remains.

“Will it be a better horse? I don’t know. Time will tell.”

The post World’s first gene-edited horses are shaking up the genteel sport of polo appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.