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
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).
Anyone interested in advanced therapies is familiar with the acronym CAR-T. These are T lymphocytes modified (also with the help of CRISPR) to better recognize and attack cancer cells, and they have already proven to be a successful strategy for blood tumors. Now hopes are high that a similar approach may also prove useful for multiple sclerosis, which is an autoimmune disease. The idea is to use CAR-Ts to prevent B lymphocytes from attacking nerve cells, including in the brain. The first clinical trial is recruiting patients in the U.S. Read more in Nature.
Let’s come to the use of New Genomic Techniques in crops. The European Commission’s regulatory proposal (approved by the EU Parliament on Feb. 7) excludes the use of edited plants in organic farming, but among organic producers not everyone is against NGTs and this may bode well for a possible peaceful coexistence between the different types of production in the years to come.
Finally, we point out the latest advance in animal editing: porcine virus-resistant pigs. The paper came out in the CRISPR Journal, but you can also read about it in GEN.
A CRISPR/Cas9-modified rice variety may be planted in a test field in northern Italy as soon as this spring after a government rule change introduced in 2023. A University of Milan team was the first research group in the country to apply for a field test under a law change that streamlines procedures for field trials of plants developed through genome editing or cisgenesis. With several other groups also planning proposals, a new wave of agricultural genetics in Italy could follow. [Please see the details in my article for Nature Italy]
There is great disorder under the heavens of new biotechnology. Judging by the Italian debate on genetic innovation in agriculture, it seems that we no longer know what to call what. We are waiting for the European Commission to present its proposal to regulate ‘new genomic techniques’ (NGTs) on 5 July (see the leaked draft here). But in the meantime, on 9 June, the Italian Parliament approved a regulation in favour of experimentation with ‘assisted evolution techniques’ (TEAs), which are the same thing. However, if you read the official wording (9 bis, drought decree law) this expression is missing: instead, it refers to the deliberate release into the environment for experimental purposes of ‘organisms produced by genome editing techniques through site-directed mutagenesis or by cisgenesis’.
Continue reading
The European Commission’s proposal for an updated regulatory framework for New Genomic Techniques is due on 5 July, but someone leaked the confidential document online. In a nutshell, if the modification could also have been achieved naturally or by conventional methods, and the plant has the same risk profile as its conventional counterpart, it should be treated similarly to conventional plants and differently from GMOs (it would not require authorisation, risk assessment, traceability, labelling as GMO, but would be placed in a transparency register). For plants in which editing or cisgenesis has led to results that differ from conventional ones, the current GMO rules apply. You can read the Genetic Literacy Project’s explanation here.
Please note a couple of things environamental NGOs and organic producers should like: herbicide-tolerant NGT plants would remain subject to GMO rules, and all NGT plants would remain subject to the prohibition of use of GMOs in organic production.
CRISPeR FRENZY 