The European Union appears ready to facilitate the approval of gene-edited crops and usher in a new era on the continent, one where plants developed using “new genomic techniques” are no longer substantially limited from production.
The European Parliament on Tuesday debated NGT legislation that was approved by the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee last month, 47-31, with four abstentions. A vote is expected Wednesday.
The proposal has the backing of the plant breeding and agricultural industry on the continent, as well as scientists involved in the development of gene editing techniques. On the other side are environmental and organic farming groups that offer a plethora of reasons in opposition, including the potential for contamination of organic crops by those developed with NGTs.
The proposal would create two categories of NGTs.
First would be NGT plants that could naturally occur or result from conventional breeding, and which would be subject to a verification process. Specifically exempted from the long-standing GMO rules, which have severely limited development of genetically engineered plants, would be plants created with cisgenesis and targeted mutagenesis that fulfill the verification criteria.
“Targeted mutagenesis induces mutations in the genome without insertion of foreign genetic material (e.g., changes are made within the same plant species),” according to a European Commission Q&A on the proposal. “Cisgenesis is an insertion of genetic material into a recipient organism from a donor that is sexually compatible with the recipient organism (e.g., changes are made between naturally compatible plants).”
If the plants meet the specified criteria, they would be treated like conventional plants and exempted from GMO legislation requirements. “This means no risk assessment is necessary, and they can be labeled like conventional plants,” notes SECNewgate, a public affairs company in Europe.
Specifically, an “NGT plant is considered equivalent to conventional plants when it differs from the parent plant by no more than 20 genetic modifications,” according to a European Parliament briefing paper.
All other NGT plants would fall under the current GMO regulations, which require a risk assessment and authorization to be marketed. They also will have to meet requirements for traceability and labeling.
But the path toward an NGT future remains a long one, said Euroseeds Manager of Plant Breeding and Innovation Advocacy Petra Jorasch.
Petra Jorasch, EuroseedsShe said that if Parliament approves the legislation, then it, the European Commission, and the European Council — the heads of state or government of the 27 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission — will likely have to convene a “trilogue” to agree on common text.
But even after agreeing on the text, the EC will have to adopt implementing regulations, which could take another two years. The upshot? “We are not yet there,” Jorasch said, predicting that the earliest the new regulations could be in place would be 2026.
Upcoming EU elections and the seating of a new parliament could end up postponing the matter.
Herbicide-tolerant plants would be excluded from the streamlined regulation. “Based on the regulation's goal of contributing to the targets of the 'farm to fork' strategy to reduce the use of pesticides, incentives would not be available for plants featuring herbicide-tolerant traits obtained with NGTs,” the briefing paper says.
The impetus for the legislation comes from a 2018 European Court of Justice decision that found that even when plants were created using gene editing without foreign DNA, they should be treated the same as transgenic plants. That caused one researcher to call it “the death blow for plant biotech in Europe.”
However, the decision also triggered a study by the European Commission and eventually, the legislation being considered by Parliament.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
The advantages of using NGTs such as gene editing are clear to developers. They take significantly less time and cost less money than conventional breeding.
“By embracing genome editing, European breeders and seed producers [will] be in a better position to develop not only more sustainable and resilient crops, but also crops, especially vegetables, with immediate consumer benefits, such as improved nutritional value,” says a letter from four researchers published in the Sept. 14 issue of Nature Biotechnology.
Jorasch agrees. “If you have a lighter regulation, and you have a technology which allows you — for crops with long generation times — to do things faster, then there are new opportunities,” especially for specialty crops, she said.
In addition, NGTs can help address food quality, she says, such as by developing oilseeds with a more favorable nutritional profile or low-gluten wheat.
Leah Buchman, senior manager for agriculture and environment regulatory policy at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, said. BIO supports the changes but that their impact on U.S. industry will be difficult to gauge for some time.
“I do think it opens a pathway for specialty crops,” she said, pointing to the time savings from using NGTs and the ability of breeders to engineer plants for insect resistance.
“Any increased ability to work toward crops that have the capability to reduce those numbers of insects” either by not using chemical methods or by using fewer chemicals is a positive step, she said.
Environmentalists and organic producers in Europe have been staunchly opposed to the changes. “The proposed law does not provide sufficient protection against the contamination of crops with new GMOs, which are obtained through so-called new genomic techniques (NGTs),” Greenpeace’s European Unit said after last month’s vote by the environment committee.
The group also argued “studies show that NGTs cause unintended mutations in the genome” that wouldn’t be possible through conventional breeding. It also said the proposal would “scrap most safety rules.”
“The legislative proposal would seriously weaken or entirely remove safety checks and labeling requirements, based on unproven claims by biotech companies,” the group said.
Jorasch said the opposition to genetically modified plants hasn’t changed much over the years despite decades of safe use.
“I think we have now almost 30 years of GM cultivation,” she said. “And up until now, and besides maybe over-adopting certain types of GMOs, there has never been any study about negative impacts on health or the environment.”
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com
