Gene Editing: A Sustainable agriculture opportunity or a risk for the environment and our health? Part 1

After 20 years of GMOs, a new method for plant variety creation has emerged, sparking debate between regulatory authorities and opposing NGOs. Let’s explore arguments for and against.

 

In several countries, creating new plant varieties through the so-called “geneediting” technology or New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), specifically CRISPR/ Cas 9 (box 1), is already permitted. In the European Union, however, we still lack a legal framework to regulate the use of this technology in agriculture. It is a matter of fact that while in case of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) the opposition front was quite large, including support by some farmers, this new technology could be more easily accepted. There is already a draft EU Regulation (box 2), which is expected to be issued before the end of this year. Still, numerous individuals and Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) worldwide are against the use of this technology at all, or, in other cases, call for labelling of seeds and food products obtained by this method. The disagreement between those who are in favor and those who are against the new EU Regulation is based on several points. Covering them all in a single article is impossible. We thought to start with an introduction and explore the different opinions about the potential hazards and risks associated with this method used to obtain new plants.

This raises the question: is it possible that this intervention in the plants genome -presented as really a “mild” approach - could have unforeseen negative consequences?

According to plant geneticists, this danger does not exist because humans have been changing the plant genome well before they could act directly on DNA. For thousands of years, humans have selected varieties that, thanks to crossbreeding, became more productive. Similarly, they did so with animals. However, this works well only in plants with considerable genetic variety. In many cultivated plant populations, such variability is scarce; therefore, farmers first, and seed companies later, had difficulties improving or “evolving” these plants. To enrich DNA variability, in the last century, long before molecular biology tools were available, much more rudimentary methods were used.

To enrich DNA variability, in the last century... rudimentary methods were used. These were ionizing radiation and chemical mutagens.

These were ionizing radiation and chemical mutagens box 3. One might think this happened for a limited time and has nothing to do with the plants we consume today. But this is not true; for example, some durum wheat varieties used today descend directly from varieties obtained precisely through these methods box 4.

Through these methods, a flood of mutations in the DNA affected many genes, with entirely unpredictable consequences. Naturally, most of these new plants had problems because the DNA repair system never works 100%, and some mutations also carried worsening traits or were lethal. However, among many plants, several survived and carried with them different genetic variations. By crossing these survivors, advantageous and significantly improved combinations could finally emerge. The crosses between different variants of plants and animals, which breeders and farmers have been doing for millennia, may seem “natural” to us, even if they are not.