The rules governing new gene editing techniques for plants – called "new genomic techniques" (NGTs) – are being changed at EU level. Gene-edited plants will be divided into two categories, depending on the type and number of edits involved. Those with few genetic changes that could have occurred through conventional breeding techniques will be considered conventional plants, while the rest will have to follow the same strict rules as GMOs.
New developments in biotechnology have led to a variety of new gene editing techniques, encompassed in the term "new genomic techniques" (NGTs).
The big difference between GMOs and NGTs is that GMOs are mostly made by inserting a gene from a different species into a plant, while NGTs allow targeted changes to a plant’s own DNA.
[...]
The new EU rules mark a shift towards regulating based on what the final plant looks like genetically, not how it was made.
NGT-altered plants are split between two categories, with different legal obligations attached.
NGT-1 — This category is for plants with edits that could have occurred through conventional breeding. These will be treated like conventional plants, exhibiting a limited number and type of changes. Plants engineered for herbicide-tolerance or to produce insecticidal substances cannot be treated as NGT-1 plants.
NGT-2 — This category is for plants that have undergone more extensive or complex genetic modifications. These are covered by the existing strict GMO rules and will be subject to risk assessment, authorisation, labelling, traceability, and member-state opt-outs for cultivation.
Neither NGT-1 nor NGT-2 plants will be allowed in organic production.
I wish I could feel more optimistic about this rule change. There's such an opposition to genetically modified organisms in the EU regulatory landscape that virtually no plant GMO created within...
I wish I could feel more optimistic about this rule change. There's such an opposition to genetically modified organisms in the EU regulatory landscape that virtually no plant GMO created within the EU has received permission to be grown commercially.
I don't see how even with a new standard how that opposition would change.
Also, "edits that could have occurred through conventional breeding"? That feels like a difficult argument to make. How would that even be proven?
I'm not a lawyer, but the way I'd go about it is to use a pre-existing similar change to a plant that occurred through selective breeding. But it would be a difficult argument either way.
Also, "edits that could have occurred through conventional breeding"? That feels like a difficult argument to make. How would that even be proven?
I'm not a lawyer, but the way I'd go about it is to use a pre-existing similar change to a plant that occurred through selective breeding. But it would be a difficult argument either way.
If I have a variety of carrot that's really productive and tastes good and I add two different drought resistance modifications from other varieties of carrot? If the genes exist in another...
If I have a variety of carrot that's really productive and tastes good and I add two different drought resistance modifications from other varieties of carrot? If the genes exist in another cultivar of the plant and you're adding them to a different cultivar this provides a way to do more consistently than crossbreeding?
I can't see how they've defined the limit legally but that is what I took it to allow?
I'm not too sure to be honest. As a certified EU stan this is one of the biggest flaws of the EU. The need to overregulate has choked a lot of stuff out. Sometimes it's good, but sometimes it's...
I'm not too sure to be honest. As a certified EU stan this is one of the biggest flaws of the EU. The need to overregulate has choked a lot of stuff out. Sometimes it's good, but sometimes it's also bad.
That being said, GMO is very unpopular in the population. I doubt this will change much.
I've been following GMO legislation for a while, just as a purely amateur gardener, tree-hugger, and former public health nut. This is good news from an environmental, public health, and science...
I've been following GMO legislation for a while, just as a purely amateur gardener, tree-hugger, and former public health nut. This is good news from an environmental, public health, and science perspective.
I'd like to see a three level "traffic light" legislative/regulatory regime where:
Green: mix-and-match genetics from known safe cultivars of a single plant species, as /u/Tardigrade suggested. It's conceivable that this might impact nutrition or allergenicity in food plants or invasiveness in non-food crops, but not outside the expected bounds of that particular plant. Requires certification that the resulting cultivar breeds true for at least 5 generations to establish that viability is not compromised by off-target edits, and seeds must be licensed for saving. May be upgraded to "organic" certification after 10 years without reported negative impacts on consumers, pollinators, or ecosystems other than those expected for cultivation of the unmodified varieties.
Yellow (edible plants): Insertion of genes from other known safe food crop plants (not previously genetically modified), like carotene genes added to rice. Genes that confer resistance to herbicides or express higher than normally occurring levels of pesticidal/biocidal chemicals for the original species are not eligible for Yellow classification. Requires nutritional composition analysis with favorable comparison to the unmodified species and allergen testing for food crop certification, in addition to the proofs at Green level. Inserted genes should not transfer to unmodified plants if licensing is applied.
Yellow (non-edible crops): Insertion of genes from related known safe crop species (i.e. jute genes in hemp or pest resistance from other trees in ash or pine). Requires testing to ensure that the transgenic hybrid is not invasive and that inserted genes are not transferrable to unmodified plants.
Red: Insertion of genes from non-edible plants in food plants. Insertion of genes from other kingdoms (bacteria, fungi, etc.) and synthetic genes in all crops. Requires extensive targeted studies for release - toxicology and nutritional equivalence for food crops, environmental impact, proof that modified genes do not transfer to unmodified plants, and public benefit/risk analysis. Requires prominent GMO labeling.
Plants that continuously produce higher than naturally occurring amounts of pesticidal/biocidal chemicals (example) should not be approved at all, due to ecological and health impacts and selection for resistant organisms.
Ideally these Red label plants should include multiple sensitivity genes to allow eradication of the modified plant by common herbicides.
If released, requires a public health registry for reporting and detection of medical problems, as well as monitoring for environmental impact (pollinator and insect population decline, etc.), including excessive herbicide/pesticide use in conjunction with the crop. Licensing may be withdrawn on adequate notice of harms and withdrawal may require proof that the released plant has been eradicated in open field use.
Fantasy land, I know. I'm a hard "no" on GMO animals for humane and ecological reasons, unless it's to prevent extinction.
It's obvious that we need to accelerate release of food crops tolerant to the impacts of climate change (as well as accelerate adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices). OTOH, glyposate or dicamba application on "Roundup Ready" and other herbicide-resistant GMO crops have been slow-moving environmental and public health disasters, and the last thing we'd need for the food web would be someone deciding to include nicotines or other pesticide expressing genes in everything.
From the article:
[...]
[...]
I wish I could feel more optimistic about this rule change. There's such an opposition to genetically modified organisms in the EU regulatory landscape that virtually no plant GMO created within the EU has received permission to be grown commercially.
I don't see how even with a new standard how that opposition would change.
Also, "edits that could have occurred through conventional breeding"? That feels like a difficult argument to make. How would that even be proven?
I'm not a lawyer, but the way I'd go about it is to use a pre-existing similar change to a plant that occurred through selective breeding. But it would be a difficult argument either way.
If I have a variety of carrot that's really productive and tastes good and I add two different drought resistance modifications from other varieties of carrot? If the genes exist in another cultivar of the plant and you're adding them to a different cultivar this provides a way to do more consistently than crossbreeding?
I can't see how they've defined the limit legally but that is what I took it to allow?
I'm not too sure to be honest. As a certified EU stan this is one of the biggest flaws of the EU. The need to overregulate has choked a lot of stuff out. Sometimes it's good, but sometimes it's also bad.
That being said, GMO is very unpopular in the population. I doubt this will change much.
I've been following GMO legislation for a while, just as a purely amateur gardener, tree-hugger, and former public health nut. This is good news from an environmental, public health, and science perspective.
I'd like to see a three level "traffic light" legislative/regulatory regime where:
Green: mix-and-match genetics from known safe cultivars of a single plant species, as /u/Tardigrade suggested. It's conceivable that this might impact nutrition or allergenicity in food plants or invasiveness in non-food crops, but not outside the expected bounds of that particular plant. Requires certification that the resulting cultivar breeds true for at least 5 generations to establish that viability is not compromised by off-target edits, and seeds must be licensed for saving. May be upgraded to "organic" certification after 10 years without reported negative impacts on consumers, pollinators, or ecosystems other than those expected for cultivation of the unmodified varieties.
Yellow (edible plants): Insertion of genes from other known safe food crop plants (not previously genetically modified), like carotene genes added to rice. Genes that confer resistance to herbicides or express higher than normally occurring levels of pesticidal/biocidal chemicals for the original species are not eligible for Yellow classification. Requires nutritional composition analysis with favorable comparison to the unmodified species and allergen testing for food crop certification, in addition to the proofs at Green level. Inserted genes should not transfer to unmodified plants if licensing is applied.
Yellow (non-edible crops): Insertion of genes from related known safe crop species (i.e. jute genes in hemp or pest resistance from other trees in ash or pine). Requires testing to ensure that the transgenic hybrid is not invasive and that inserted genes are not transferrable to unmodified plants.
Red: Insertion of genes from non-edible plants in food plants. Insertion of genes from other kingdoms (bacteria, fungi, etc.) and synthetic genes in all crops. Requires extensive targeted studies for release - toxicology and nutritional equivalence for food crops, environmental impact, proof that modified genes do not transfer to unmodified plants, and public benefit/risk analysis. Requires prominent GMO labeling.
Plants that continuously produce higher than naturally occurring amounts of pesticidal/biocidal chemicals (example) should not be approved at all, due to ecological and health impacts and selection for resistant organisms.
Ideally these Red label plants should include multiple sensitivity genes to allow eradication of the modified plant by common herbicides.
If released, requires a public health registry for reporting and detection of medical problems, as well as monitoring for environmental impact (pollinator and insect population decline, etc.), including excessive herbicide/pesticide use in conjunction with the crop. Licensing may be withdrawn on adequate notice of harms and withdrawal may require proof that the released plant has been eradicated in open field use.
Fantasy land, I know. I'm a hard "no" on GMO animals for humane and ecological reasons, unless it's to prevent extinction.
It's obvious that we need to accelerate release of food crops tolerant to the impacts of climate change (as well as accelerate adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices). OTOH, glyposate or dicamba application on "Roundup Ready" and other herbicide-resistant GMO crops have been slow-moving environmental and public health disasters, and the last thing we'd need for the food web would be someone deciding to include nicotines or other pesticide expressing genes in everything.