CRISPR in Crops: Precision or Peril?
EU Eases Restrictions on Crops Developed Using Novel Genetic Techniques
The European Union has taken a significant step in easing restrictions on crops developed using novel genetic techniques. This move is seen as a potential game-changer for farmers, with supporters arguing that the technology could help them adapt to the challenges posed by climate change. However, critics remain concerned about the long-term effects of these advancements.
On Wednesday, the European Parliament approved new rules that would allow farmers to more easily grow crops genetically edited using new genomic techniques (NGTs). This decision marks a notable shift for the EU, which has historically maintained a cautious stance on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) since the 1990s.
From 'Frankenfoods' to CRISPR Crops
Thirty years ago, GMO agricultural products were often referred to as "Frankenstein foods" or "Frankenfoods." Environmentalists and certain members of the media raised concerns that GMOs could cause allergic reactions, lead to antibiotic resistance, and have other long-term health effects. Critics also warned that genetically modified seeds could increase corporate control over farmers and that modified genes might leak into non-GM crops and the wider environment.
The European Union regulated the technology more tightly than many other parts of the world. Environmental groups and some small-farmer organizations oppose the move, arguing that the decision prioritizes the profits of biotech giants over the rights of those who feed the population.
NGTs: Natural Changes with a Nudge?
Novel genetic techniques (NGTs) differ from traditional GMOs. With many NGT applications, no foreign gene is added. Instead, existing genes are altered in the plant using CRISPR, the Nobel Prize-winning gene editing tool that allows scientists to cut out and replace defective genes, essentially rewriting an organism's genome.
Under the new EU legislation, there would be two groups of NGTs:
- NGT-1s: These include crops with "a limited number and type of changes, and which could have occurred through conventional breeding," according to a European Parliament summary. These would be treated much like conventional crops.
- NGT-2s: These are defined as having more than 20 genetic modifications or specific, excluded traits, such as herbicide tolerance.
"If a CRISPR-edited plant contains no foreign DNA and carries only changes that could also arise through natural mutation processes, then from a scientific point of view, there is no convincing reason to treat it like a classical transgenic plant," said Detlef Weigel, director of the molecular biology department at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biology.
GABA: Not Just Another Tomato
Michael Antoniou, professor of molecular genetics at King's College London, argues that gene-edited plants are fundamentally different from conventionally bred crops because the CRISPR process itself can cause unintended changes in the new plant's DNA.
"The scientific evidence shows that when considered as a whole, the CRISPR gene editing process causes large-scale random, unintended sites of damage to the DNA of the plant, and [those sites of damage] can number in the hundreds or thousands," Antoniou said.
Antoniou cites GABA tomatoes as an example. They were the world's first commercially available CRISPR gene-edited food. Cultivated in Japan, GABA tomatoes contain high amounts of the neurotransmitter GABA and are marketed to help lower blood pressure, improve sleep, and relieve temporary stress.
"Yes, [they look] like a normal tomato, but what unintentional changes to its biochemistry and composition have also taken place?" he asked. "We don't know."
Altering Crop Genes Is 'Nothing New'
Weigel said CRISPR is an improvement on older methods used by plant breeders to create new crops, such as the introduction of chemicals and radiation to induce mutations. These methods, he said, are often less predictable than the results of CRISPR.
"CRISPR is more precise in this respect than many older methods," said Weigel. "This does not automatically make the biology risk-free, just as not every naturally occurring plant is automatically edible. But it makes it difficult to see why such plants should be inherently more dangerous than conventionally bred plants."
And are NGT crops edible? The World Health Organization says all GM foods should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. But currently available products are unlikely to pose risks to human health, it adds.
'Don't Ban New Technology' — Design Better Safeguards
Matin Qaim, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Bonn in Germany, argues that the EU has been too cautious in its approach to crop biotechnology, including older, transgenic techniques.
"Issues of public acceptance have led to costly and lengthy regulatory procedures for transgenic GM crops, not because these crops are really dangerous but because anti-GM activists have managed to depict them as dangerous in the public perception," he said.
Qaim said that while practical experience with NGTs is limited, the technology will likely make breeding new crops faster, more precise, and more efficient.
"The best answer is typically not to ban specific technologies but to identify smart policies that help to maintain competition and fair access to relevant innovations by all," he said.
