The Legislative Jungle of Gene Editing
Hudson River
Pioneers in the application of Protoplast-CRISPR technology for better, more resilient crops - at scale.
In the initial years of CRISPR, the groundbreaking science immediately blew every scientist away. But the number of social and economic setbacks for gene edited crops were high... Not only did the consumer equate gene editing to GMO, legislators did the same in their rules of law.
This meant that many markets, while they could have benefited from CRISPR, did not gain access to it. What might be worse, scientific innovation was severely wounded. In some areas, such as the EU, progress in this field has been almost completely frozen.
But as many of you might have noticed, over the last 1-2 years there is movement... Needs are rising, scientists are heard, viewpoints are reconsidered.
In this June newsletter we hone in on this very relevant topic to uncover the legislative jungle of gene editing.
Where is legislation changing?
In only the last 6 months (!) #China, #Switzerland, the #UK, the #Philippines, #Kenya, #India and #Canada have adapted their agricultural policies in favor of gene editing.
These countries are seeing the effects of climate change, realizing gene editing is very different than genetic modification, and changing their legislation accordingly.
Agriculture is now responsible for 24% of global greenhouse emissions
How does this affect CRISPR gene editing in crops?
These regulation changes do not mean #CRISPR crops will become a free for all. CRISPR editing can be performed in different ways, which affects both the effects the editing has for the genome and the way legislative regulations may treat CRISPR-editing in plants. Different countries have different ways to assess this. On top of that, crop cultivation is often judged differently than crop import.
At HRB we've written a complete update on the latest status of CRISPR & GMO legislation around the world.
Yes, the legislative world can definitely feel like a never-ending jungle. But we've managed to find a way through. Take a look at our latest update.
Let's zoom in on the EU for a bit.
领英推荐
The Current Situation
The EU's classification and rejection of CRISPR as GMO has been one of the biggest setbacks in gene editing legislation, and has had major ripple effects in the rest of the world.
At the same time, the EU is working hard to become a global leader in the fight against climate change, which includes fighting for sustainable food systems. Makes sense, because agriculture is now responsible for 24% of global greenhouse emissions.
So the European Commission has pledged itself to its?Farm to Fork Strategy, which is centered on organic farming. In this approach, 25% of the EU’s agricultural land will be used for organic farming by 2030.
Problem is, if the EU truly wants sustainable food systems, their current Farm to Fork strategy will not cut it.
While organic farming can definitely contribute to sustainability, its negative indirect effects, such as additional land use and pressure on external ecosystems, are often overlooked. Already we see that approximately 16% of global deforestation is linked to consumption in the EU.
What To Do About This?
For a sustainable food system, #biotechnology NEEDS to be included in the EU FarmtoFork strategy!
And luckily more and more people are becoming aware of this. Voices within the EU Parliament are urging to move forward on new breeding techniques.
Needs are rising, scientists are heard, viewpoints are reconsidered.
The EU has also launched a public consultation to collect views on gene-editing for plants. They have provided a questionnaire as it seeks to receive citizens’ and stakeholders’ views. The results will be taken into account in their new policy initiative.
You can fill in the questionnaire as an individual, company or organization. Join us in urging the European Commission to:
To close of, we would like to highlight a list of thought-provoking media on the diverse impact legislation developments have had and will have:
Do you believe there is another point that should be addressed concerning legislation? Share it with us!
Researcher, UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal
2 年Very nice opinion and a great compilation regarding genome editing in crops. It is really sad to see that EU is still in a dilemma to define the legislative structure for GE technology despite of several countries are moving forward. I would like to add one point here, EU research programs focus a lot to be self sufficient on one hand while depending on import of genetically modified products to fulfill their need. One example is the animal feed, where major protein source is GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYA, imported from USA. So basically what we see, EU allows the GMO products in its own market, while does not want to allow the methods to produce by its own. If the genetically edited product does not contain any foreign DNA, why it is being treated as same as transgenic crops. In short, foreign countries may develop the superior crops by gene editing and sell their product in european market while there is no opportunity for native researchers/farmers/enterprenures to develop their own products and introduce in their own market. Ironically we will continue to dream about self suffieciency by using modern biotechnological tools in current agriculture practices.
Senior Projectmanager Agro-Food @Oost NL
2 年Marcel Bruins fyi