Tag Archives: New Genomic Techniques

NGTs in the EU: why the new amendments should be rejected

Posted on by
Reply

A French association and three German associations representing geneticists, agronomists, and other academic and professional figures involved in the field of plant biotechnology have sent a letter to Members of the European Parliament urging them to vote against the latest amendments concerning new genomic techniques (NGTs). The joint message is addressed in particular to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). It defends the text developed over years of negotiations by the European institutions (the Trilogue) and responds point by point to its critics. Further delaying the approval of the new regulation, the experts argue, would hinder the development of solutions needed to tackle the climate challenge and would damage Europe’s competitiveness (currently, more than 50% of peer-reviewed NGT research comes from China, while the EU accounts for only 15%).

Continue reading →

Edited plants in the EU: countdown to reform

Posted on by
1

A little more patience. The European Parliament’s final vote, originally scheduled for March, has been postponed to late April, but the finish line is in sight. We should finally have rules that distinguish true transgenic plants (containing foreign DNA) from edited plants that do not contain extra genes and are indistinguishable from traditional breeding programs.

Continue reading →

Will edited plants be patentable in EU?

Posted on by
Reply

A year after the European Parliament voted to ban patents, EU countries still seek a compromise on NGT regulation

The revision of the regulatory framework for genetically modified plants currently underway in Europe aims to keep pace with technological advances and support the development of sustainable agriculture. The scientific community, the seed industry, and major farmers’ associations view the overall framework positively, but the devil is still in the details.

Continue reading →

Will edited foods appeal to consumers?

Posted on by
Reply

While the number of studies on this topic is limited, they generally align in indicating that genome-edited plants are more appealing to the public than GMOs. Supporting this assertion is an analysis set to be published in the June issue of Current Opinion in Biotechnology. Hans De Steur and his colleagues at the University of Ghent in Belgium conducted a review of data collected from various countries worldwide, including Europe, Asia, and the Americas.

Continue reading →

CRISPR plants – what the EU Parliament got right and wrong

Posted on by
Reply

There is no doubt that this is good news: on February 7, the European Parliament approved the Commission’s regulatory proposal on New Genomic Techniques, covering also CRISPR plants. Some of the approved amendments (particularly the one on genetic modification of polyploid plants) have the effect of improving the text, others risk being a problem and should be reconsidered during the trilogue with member states (particularly the requirement to label all final products, even if they do not contain foreign genes). The European Parliament also brought in the issue of non-patentability of NGT plants, which would deserve to be addressed elsewhere. For more information, this is the position expressed on February 14 by European Plant Science Organisation (EPSO).

A letter to Europe from CRISPR inventors and a thousand other scientists

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Members of the European Parliament, 

In these times of climate crisis, biodiversity loss and renewed food insecurity, a scientific and evidence-based approach is essential in every respect. Now more than ever, we must rise above ideology and dogmatism. That is why we the undersigned turn to you and urge you to carefully consider the benefits of embracing New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) in your upcoming parliamentary decisions. As concerned citizens who believe in the power of science to improve our lives and our relationship with the planet, we implore you to vote in favour of NGTs, aligning your decisions with the advancements in scientific understanding. Conventional breeding for climate resilient crops (with cross-breeding of certain traits, subsequent selection and then backcrossing to remove undesirable traits) is too time-consuming. It takes years, decades even. We do not have this time in an era of climate emergency.  

[Here you can read the full text of the letter and subscribe to it]

Hopes and worries in the CRISPR world

Posted on by
Reply
Credit Bing Image Creator

The news of the week is definitely this: the first clinical trial with base editing (the CRISPR platform used to chemically change single DNA letters without double-strand breaks) hit the goal of lowering cholesterol in patients but raised questions about the risks (with two serious adverse events, including one death), as Nature reports.

But we also recommend reading two other articles. Nature Biotechnology takes a look at experiments using CRISPR to eliminate viruses that manage to hide from the immune system, such as HIV and hepatitis. While Genetic Literacy Project publishes an analysis of the problems that could cripple the new regulation on edited plants proposed by the European Commission and delay (even until 2030) the arrival of the first products on the EU market.

CRISPR crops: the devil in the detail of the EU proposal

Posted on by
Reply
Image source: “How the EU risks falling behind in the bioeconomy revolution“, a report by the Breakthrough Institute and the Alliance for Science

The scientific community has warmly welcomed the proposal for partial deregulation of new genomic techniques put forward by the European Commission last July. Unfortunately, the legislative process will not be able to make significant progress before the next parliamentary term, which opens with the European elections in June 2024. However, this time will not be wasted if it serves to address a few problematic points and to finalise a few clarifying amendments. The devil is in the details: from the 20-nucleotide threshold proposed to delimit permissible interventions on the genome to the unknowns regarding coexistence with organic farming, not forgetting the stigma against herbicides. This article published in Nature Biotechnology by Belgian and German researchers is useful for going through the still unresolved issues.

Edited crops in EU – Have your say

Posted on by
Reply

The European Commission is collecting comments on the proposed regulation on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) presented on 5 July. On this page you will find all the documents you need to form an opinion: from the criteria for establishing when a NGT plant is comparable to a conventional plant, to calculations on the costs of coexistence for organic producers (see in particular the Impact assessment report). The feedback received during the consultation period (8 weeks, extendable) will be summarised by the European Commission and presented to the European Parliament and the Council to feed into the legislative debate. In general, CRISPeR Frenzy appreciates the proposed regulation, especially for its focus on the promised benefits of NGTs in terms of environmental sustainability.