GM directive deficiencies in the European Union. The current framework for regulating GM crops in the EU weakens the precautionary principle as a policy tool

Exploring the potential of CRISPR/Cas genome editing for vegetable crop improvement: An overview of challenges and approaches

Vegetables provide many nutrients in the form of fiber, vitamins, and minerals, which make them an important part of our diet. Numerous biotic and abiotic stresses can affect crop growth, quality, and yield. Traditional and modern breeding strategies to improve plant traits are slow and resource intensive. Therefore, it is necessary to find new approaches for crop improvement. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR associated 9 (CRISPR/Cas9) is a genome editing tool that can be used to modify targeted genes for desirable traits with greater efficiency and accuracy. By using CRISPR/Cas9 editing to precisely mutate key genes, it is possible to rapidly generate new germplasm resources for the promotion of important agronomic traits. This is made possible by the availability of whole genome sequencing data and information on the function of genes responsible for important traits. In addition, CRISPR/Cas9 systems have revolutionized agriculture, making genome editing more versatile. Currently, genome editing of vegetable crops is limited to a few vegetable varieties (tomato, sweet potato, potato, carrot, squash, eggplant, etc.) due to lack of regeneration protocols and sufficient genome sequencing data. In this article, we summarize recent studies on the application of CRISPR/Cas9 in improving vegetable trait development and the potential for future improvement.

A new window of opportunity to reject process-based biotechnology regulation

The question of whether biotechnology regulation should be based on the process or the product has long been debated, with different jurisdictions adopting different approaches. The European Union has adopted a process-based approach, Canada has adopted a product-based approach, and the United States has implemented a hybrid system. With the recent proliferation of new methods of genetic modification, such as gene editing, process-based regulatory systems, which are premised on a binary system of transgenic and conventional approaches, will become increasingly obsolete and unsustainable. To avoid unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary results, nations that have adopted process-based approaches will need to migrate to a product-based approach that considers the novelty and risks of the individual trait, rather than the process by which that trait was produced. This commentary suggests some approaches for the design of such a product-based approach.

Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU

Several new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) have been developed during the last decade, and make it possible to precisely perform genome modifications in plants. The major problem, other than technical aspects, is the vagueness of regulation concerning these new techniques. Since the definition of eight NPBTs by a European expert group in 2007, there has been an ongoing debate on whether the resulting plants and their products are covered by GMO legislation. Obviously, cover by GMO legislation would severely hamper the use of NPBT, because genetically modified plants must pass a costly and time-consuming GMO approval procedure in the EU. In this review, we compare some of the NPBTs defined by the EU expert group with classical breeding techniques and conventional transgenic plants. The list of NPBTs may be shortened (or extended) during the international discussion process initiated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. From the scientific point of view, it may be argued that plants developed by NPBTs are often indistinguishable from classically bred plants and are not expected to possess higher risks for health and the environment. In light of the debate on the future regulation of NPBTs and the accumulated evidence on the biosafety of genetically modified plants that have been commercialized and risk-assessed worldwide, it may be suggested that plants modified by crop genetic improvement technologies, including genetic modification, NPBTs or other future techniques, should be evaluated according to the new trait and the resulting end product rather than the technique used to create the new plant variety.

Paradoxical EU agricultural policies on genetically engineered crops

European Union (EU) agricultural policy has been developed in the pursuit of laudable goals such as a competitive economy and regulatory harmony across the union. However, what has emerged is a fragmented, contradictory, and unworkable legislative framework that threatens economic disaster. In this review, we present case studies highlighting differences in the regulations applied to foods grown in EU countries and identical imported products, which show that the EU is undermining its own competitiveness in the agricultural sector, damaging both the EU and its humanitarian activities in the developing world. We recommend the adoption of rational, science-based principles for the harmonization of agricultural policies to prevent economic decline and lower standards of living across the continent.

Genomic misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation

The regulation of genetically engineered crops, in Europe and within the legislation of the Cartagena biosafety protocol is built on false premises: The claim was (and unfortunately still is) that there is a basic difference between conventional and transgenic crops, this despite the fact that this has been rejected on scientifically solid grounds since many years. This contribution collects some major arguments for a fresh look at regulation of transgenic crops, they are in their molecular processes of creation not basically different from conventional crops, which are based in their breeding methods on natural, sometimes enhanced mutation. But the fascination and euphoria of the discoveries in molecular biology and the new perspectives in plant breeding in the sixties and seventies led to the wrong focus on transgenic plants alone. In a collective framing process the initial biosafety debates focused on the novelty of the process of transgenesis. When early debates on the risk assessment merged into legislative decisions, this wrong focus on transgenesis alone seemed uncontested. The process-focused view was also fostered by a conglomerate of concerned scientists and biotechnology companies, both with a vested interest to at least tolerate the rise of the safety threshold to secure research money and to discourage competitors of all kinds. Policy minded people and opponent activists without deeper insight in the molecular science agreed to those efforts without much resistance. It is interesting to realize, that the focus on processes was uncontested by a majority of regulators, this despite of serious early warnings from important authorities in science, mainly of US origin. It is time to change the regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops toward a more science based process-agnostic legislation. Although this article concentrates on the critique of the process-oriented regulation, including some details about the history behind, there should be no misunderstanding that there are other important factors responsible for the failure of this kind of process-oriented regulation, most importantly: the predominance of politics in the decision making processes combined with the lack of serious scientific debates on regulatory matters within the European Union and also in the Cartagena system, the obscure and much too complex decision making structures within the EU, and the active, professional, negative and intimidating role of fundamental opposition against GM crops on all levels dealing with flawed science, often declared as better parallel science published by 'independent' scientists.

Genetic modification; the development of transgenic ornamental plant varieties

Plant transformation technology (hereafter abbreviated to GM, or genetic modification) has been used to develop many varieties of crop plants, but only a few varieties of ornamental plants. This disparity in the rate and extent of commercialisation, which has been noted for more than a decade, is not because there are no useful traits that can be engineered into ornamentals, is not due to market potential and is not due to a lack of research and development activity. The GM ornamental varieties which have been released commercially have been accepted in the marketplace. In this article, progress in the development of transgenic ornamentals is reviewed and traits useful to both consumers and producers are identified. In considering possible factors limiting the release of genetically modified ornamental products it is concluded that the most significant barrier to market is the difficulty of managing, and the high cost of obtaining, regulatory approval.

Environmental change challenges decision-making during post-market environmental monitoring of transgenic crops

The ability to decide what kind of environmental changes observed during post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified (GM) crops represent environmental harm is an essential part of most legal frameworks regulating the commercial release of GM crops into the environment. Among others, such decisions are necessary to initiate remedial measures or to sustain claims of redress linked to environmental liability. Given that consensus on criteria to evaluate 'environmental harm' has not yet been found, there are a number of challenges for risk managers when interpreting GM crop monitoring data for environmental decision-making. In the present paper, we argue that the challenges in decision-making have four main causes. The first three causes relate to scientific data collection and analysis, which have methodological limits. The forth cause concerns scientific data evaluation, which is controversial among the different stakeholders involved in the debate on potential impacts of GM crops on the environment. This results in controversy how the effects of GM crops should be valued and what constitutes environmental harm. This controversy may influence decision-making about triggering corrective actions by regulators. We analyse all four challenges and propose potential strategies for addressing them. We conclude that environmental monitoring has its limits in reducing uncertainties remaining from the environmental risk assessment prior to market approval. We argue that remaining uncertainties related to adverse environmental effects of GM crops would probably be assessed in a more efficient and rigorous way during pre-market risk assessment. Risk managers should acknowledge the limits of environmental monitoring programmes as a tool for decision-making.

The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels: plant scientist input needed

The Energy Center at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Swiss federal institute of technology) is coordinating a multi-stakeholder effort, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (http://energycenter.epfl.ch/biofuels), to develop global standards for sustainable biofuels production and processing. Given that many of the aspects related to biofuel production request a high scientific level of understanding, it is crucial that scientists take part in the discussion.