Revisiting Risk Governance of GM Plants: The Need to Consider New and Emerging Gene-Editing Techniques

Abstract

New and emerging gene-editing techniques make it possible to target specific genes in species with greater speed and specificity than previously possible. Of major relevance for plant breeding, regulators and scientists are discussing how to regulate products developed using these gene-editing techniques. Such discussions include whether to adopt or adapt the current framework for GMO risk governance in evaluating the impacts of gene-edited plants, and derived products, on the environment, human and animal health and society. Product classification or definition is one of several aspects of the current framework being criticized. Further, knowledge gaps related to risk assessments of gene-edited organisms—for example of target and off-target effects of intervention in plant genomes—are also of concern. Resolving these and related aspects of the current framework will involve addressing many subjective, value-laden positions, for example how to specify protection goals through ecosystem service approaches. A process informed by responsible research and innovation practices, involving a broader community of people, organizations, experts, and interest groups, could help scientists, regulators, and other stakeholders address these complex, value-laden concerns related to gene-editing of plants with and for society.

Induced Methylation in Plants as a Crop Improvement Tool: Progress and Perspectives

“…In contrast, some countries, such as Canada, define the safety of new crops based on the properties of the final product (product-based) rather than the technique used to produce it (process-based). The United States adopted a hybrid system in which only plants presenting new traits fall under specific regulations [111]. In 2019, the Australian government ended regulation of "DNA free" gene-editing techniques.…”

“…The difficulty associated with distinguishing between organisms presenting random natural mutations and those that have undergone new plant breeding techniques presents a significant obstacle to updating obsolete legislation [111]. The gap that exists between scientific knowledge regarding the impact of new plant breeding techniques on human and environmental health with the current legislation is a major bottleneck of the expansion of (epi)genome-edited crops [113].…”

CRISPR/Cas in Arabidopsis: overcoming challenges to accelerate improvements in crop photosynthetic efficiencies

“…In the EU, a GMO is defined as ‘an organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination’. This definition covers both the process of genetic modification and the final product, so plants produced through lab‐based technologies, including cis ‐genic plants that contain genes from sexually compatible species must be labelled as GMO (Agapito‐Tenfen et al ). The ruling came as a disappointment to EU‐based scientists, as the negative effect of GMO legislation, that has hindered research for the past 15 years, will continue to impact new gene‐editing technologies and commercial uptake in the EU (Callaway ).…”

Tensions at the boundary: Rearticulating ‘organic’ plant breeding in the age of gene editing

“…We use "gene editing" to refer to the suite of technologies that has expanded particularly in the most recent decade (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9, clustered randomly interspaced palindromic repeats and CRISPR-associated protein 9). 2 These techniques make it possible to modify organisms in faster and more targeted ways than with recombinant DNA techniques, and are being discussed as a 'new and improved' version of GM (Agapito-Tenfen et al, 2018).…”