Societal Impact StatementCan modern breeding technologies, such as genome editing, contribute to reduced pesticide usage? This question has been accentuated by a recent legal proposal to exempt genome‐edited plants from the strict regulations applied to classical genetically modified (GM) crops within the European Union (EU). Using official statistics on crop cultivation and pesticide usage for two example crops commonly grown in Sweden, we calculate that cereal farmers collectively could save up to 70 million € in pesticide usage for wheat alone and that a late blight‐resistant potato could reduce pesticide usage by over 80% provided that the EU legislation is amended.SummaryThe European Commission has set goals to reduce the use of chemical pesticides, and one way to meet these goals in the agricultural sector is to breed disease‐resistant crops. Here, we ask whether modern breeding technologies, for example, genome editing using site‐directed nucleases, can contribute to these goals. This question has been accentuated by recent legal proposals in the European Union (EU) and several other jurisdictions worldwide to exempt genome‐edited plants from the strict regulations often applied to classical genetically modified (GM) crops. Using official statistics on crop cultivation and pesticide usage for two example crops commonly grown in Sweden (wheat and potato), we show that cereal farmers collectively could potentially save up to 70 million € in pesticide usage for wheat alone and that a late blight‐resistant potato could reduce pesticide usage by over 80% provided that the EU legislation is amended. Given the immense potential of genome‐edited crops, we further discuss details in the legal proposal currently being negotiated in the EU on the so‐called new genomic techniques that includes both genome editing and targeted insertions of cisgenes. Although promising, we argue that several technical limitations in the legal proposal will, if implemented, hamper the development of disease‐resistant crops and make the suggested legislation less future‐proof.
