The European Parliament endorses New Genomic Techniques (NGT) for agriculture, establishing critical distinctions and enacting two bans. The focus now shifts to the plenary session's outcome and ensuing discussions with EU member states.
Genome editing techniques applied to plant organisms are now a rapid and low-cost tool to help achieve sustainability in the agri-food and, consequently, in the environment.
Such techniques (the most recent of which is the CRISPR Cas9 system), by means of modifications of parts of the DNA sequence, make it possible to “improving” agricultural plants, making them more resistant to insects, fungi and bacteria that attack and damage them, as well as to the changing climatic conditions to which they are now exposed.
Stronger crops to pathogens means doing away with the use of chemical pesticides, damaging the entire ecosystem, thus reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. Moreover, by intervening in their genome, the development of plants that are richer in nutrients and, therefore, able to provide for the safe nutrition of an ever-growing population.
TAKEAWAYS
Genomic Editing techniques for Agri-food Sustainability: EU Regulations Prior to 24 January 2024
Genomic editing techniques are among the so-called ‘New Genomic Techniques‘ (NGT) and, from a legislative point of view, within the European Union, until a few days ago, they were all (indistinctly) bound by the same directive which, since 2001, has governed the GMO-products (Genetically Modified Organisms), although these are two different domains. GMOs, in fact, are such as a result of the addition of genetic material from another species (e.g. bacteria) to their DNA, whereas, in ‘genetically edited‘ plant organisms, a corrective ‘genetic cut-and-paste’ is performed on a portion of the target DNA.
In short, the Directive (EU) 2015/412 (which amended 2001/18/EC), “… on the basis of a two-step mechanism, restricts or completely bans the cultivation of GMOs within the territory of the Member States“, which can only import them, mainly intended for feed for farm animals. This was the rigid position of the EU until six months ago. Let us see, step by step, what has happened in the meantime.
The European Commission’s Proposal on 5 July 2023
On 5 July, the European Commission proposed a more lenient regulatory approach for plants produced using genomic techniques, aiming to bolster agri-food and environmental sustainability within the EU. This proposal delineates two regulatory paths for agri-food products derived from New Genomic Techniques: one for genetically edited crops akin to conventional plants, and another for those with complex genetic alterations, each with tailored market admission criteria based on their risk profiles.
An open letter from 37 Nobel laureates and over 1,500 scientists, including CRISPR Cas9 pioneers Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna, and Italian Roberto Defez [see the interview at this link], called for legislative support for NGT. Highlighting the potential for sustainable agriculture and economic growth, the letter warned:
“NGTs hold immense promise for sustainable agriculture, enhanced food security and innovative medical solutions. But opportunities can also be seen in new jobs and greater economic prosperity. A recent report showed that failure to allow NGTs could cost the European economy 300 billion euros annually in ‘benefits forgone’ across multiple sectors. This is the cost of saying ‘no’ to scientific progress”.
Initial Approval for Genomic Editing Legislation for EU Agri-food Sustainability
The European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety voted on the Commission’s proposal on 24 January 2024, with 47 votes in favor, 31 against, and 4 abstentions. The vote established two prohibitions: against the use of genomic editing in organic farming and against patenting NGT crops.
The Parliament differentiated between NGT 1 plants, equating them to conventional crops and exempting them from GMO regulations, and NGT 2 plants, which will adhere to the stricter GMO legal framework. For NGT 2 plants, the Parliament supports maintaining GMO regulations, including mandatory labeling, and advocates for a streamlined risk assessment to promote adoption while upholding the precautionary principle.
The forthcoming plenary session vote in the European Parliament will determine the next steps, followed by negotiations with EU member states.
Genomic Editing techniques Beyond the EU: Implications and Prospects
Concerns over human health, environmental impact, and food safety pose barriers to the adoption of New Genomic Techniques (NGT) within the EU.
Yet, NGT products are already in use outside the EU, with the Philippines selling bananas that resist browning and the US growing genetically modified crops for enhanced pest resistance and nutritional value [source: “Recent Trends in GE Adoption” – United States Department of Agriculture].
A 2023 study titled “Genetic engineering and genome editing in plants, animals and humans: Facts and myths” states:
“…. there is no evidence that natural plants are, in principle, safer for humans than plant products modified by genomic techniques. Natural strains evolve over time through genetic mutations that can be just as risky for humans and the environment as the mutations encountered in NGT.” It argues for comparative testing of untested plant strains before commercialization, regardless of origin.”
Glimpses of futures
It is no mystery that around the approval of the draft law on genomic editing for agri-food sustainability in the European Union, many political and economic interests revolve. The versary of detractors – in the member states – is also quite numerous, including environmentalists, consumer associations and supporters of peasant agriculture, who object to the lack of a long-term risk analysis of the New Genomic Techniques, with the danger, over time – according to them – of genetic pollution and of unintentional large-scale mutations. At the moment, in short, the final outcome of future negotiations with all member states does not appear so certain.
That said, if we focus strictly on the potentialities of the tool, namely the Genetic fortune represented by the CRISPR system, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario, at a global level, in which agriculture understood as the ‘art of cultivating the land’ is relieved of all those issues that, to date, prevent it from becoming a concretely resilient and sustainable practice, from a food, social and environmental point of view, looking at the needs of all humanity.
With the aim of anticipating future scenarios, let us now try to outline – using the usual STEPS matrix– the impacts (positive and non-positive) that genome editing techniques applied to plant organisms could have on several fronts.
S – SOCIAL: with a growing world population and the worsening socio-economic fragilities of multiple populations in the global south, techniques for modifying the DNA sequence of certain agricultural plants, aimed at enriching them with ever new nutrients, could represent, for the entire planet, the ‘boon’ of the 21st century and those to come.
T – TECHNOLOGY: the evolution, in recent years, of genomic editing techniques and the ongoing discovery of new CRISPR systems (a recent study has even identified more than a hundred), suggest, for the future, the advent of even more precise genetic cutting-paste technologies and the continued discovery of new mechanisms of action of theNew Genomic Techniques, which – ten to fifteen years from now – may be able, for instance, to extend their application from crops to soils, even to the point of intervening and improving particularly arid soils.
E – ECONOMY: the agri-food sustainability achieved through the adoption of the most modern genomic editing techniques will translate, in a hypothetical future scenario, into a radical transformation of the entire agricultural supply chain, creating new professional figures within it to support farmers and, therefore, new jobs.
P – POLITICAL: Particular attention will have to be constantly paid in the future by governments and institutions to the oversight of the long-term risk analysis of NGT in agriculture. Safety for human health and the environment will always have to be at the centre of the objectives of agri-food sustainability achieved through NGT systems.
S – SUSTAINABILITY: with the evolution of genome editing technologies for agribusiness, the impacts on food, environmental, social and economic sustainability are foreseen to be particularly incisive, but they will have to be harbingers of tangible prosperity that affects all populations globally in an equitable manner. No one should be left behind or, even worse, excluded from the process of change.
