Editing EU legislation to fit plant genome editing: The use of genome editing technologies in plant breeding requires a novel regulatory approach for new plant varieties that involves farmers

Hotter, drier, CRISPR: the latest edit on climate change

Integrating CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing into modern breeding programs for crop improvement in cereals. Global climate trends in many agricultural regions have been rapidly changing over the past decades, and major advances in global food systems are required to ensure food security in the face of these emerging challenges. With increasing climate instability due to warmer temperatures and rising CO₂ levels, the productivity of global agriculture will continue to be negatively impacted. To combat these growing concerns, creative approaches will be required, utilising all the tools available to produce more robust and tolerant crops with increased quality and yields under more extreme conditions. The integration of genome editing and transgenics into current breeding strategies is one promising solution to accelerate genetic gains through targeted genetic modifications, producing crops that can overcome the shifting climate realities. This review focuses on how revolutionary genome editing tools can be directly implemented into breeding programs for cereal crop improvement to rapidly counteract many of the issues affecting agriculture production in the years to come.

Shotguns vs Lasers: Identifying barriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming for high-value health products

Plant molecular farming (PMF) is a convenient and cost-effective way to produce high-value recombinant proteins that can be used in the production of a range of health products, from pharmaceutical therapeutics to cosmetic products. New plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) provide a means to enhance PMF systems more quickly and with greater precision than ever before. However, the feasibility, regulatory standing and social acceptability of both PMF and NPBTs are in question. This paper explores the perceptions of key stakeholders on two European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 programmes-Pharma-Factory and Newcotiana-towards the barriers and facilitators of PMF and NPBTs in Europe. One-on-one qualitative interviews were undertaken with N = 20 individuals involved in one or both of the two projects at 16 institutions in seven countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, Spain and the UK). The findings indicate that the current EU regulatory environment and the perception of the public towards biotechnology are seen as the main barriers to scaling-up PMF and NPBTs. Competition from existing systems and the lack of plant-specific regulations likewise present challenges for PMF developing beyond its current niche. However, respondents felt that the communication of the benefits and purpose of NPBT PMF could provide a platform for improving the social acceptance of genetic modification. The importance of the media in this process was highlighted. This article also uses the multi-level perspective to explore the ways in which NPBTs are being legitimated by interested parties and the systemic factors that have shaped and are continuing to shape the development of PMF in Europe.

Global developments of genome editing in agriculture

Genome editing, particularly using of site-directed nucleases such as the CRISPR system, has spread rapidly through the biological sciences. Genome editing in crops could significantly speed up the progress of breeding programs. It could drive the development of traits in new crops and allow improvements in yield and pest resistance, adaptation to climate change, and industrial and pharmaceutical applications. However biofortification is a key challenge to satisfy nutritional needs in vitamins for developing countries and new consumer's needs for developed countries. China and the USA lead scientific research in crop editing. Nigeria, being headquarters to numerous research consortia, is the most involved country in Africa. Genome editing in animals including pig, cattle, sheep, and carp, has not merely accelerated research but has made possible research that was previously unfeasible. It has been used to increase disease resistance, to make livestock better adapted to farming or environmental conditions, to increase fertility and growth, and to improve animal welfare. The USA, the UK and China are the most involved countries in animal genome editing. Global food production needs to increase as much as 70 per cent to support the growing population. Genome editing could contribute improving the efficiency of food distribution and reducing waste. Depending on the regulatory conditions, genome editing could open up the field to smaller companies and public labs.

Socioeconomic Impact of Genome Editing on Agricultural Value Chains: The Case of Fungal-Resistant and Coeliac-Safe Wheat

Genome editing (GE) is gaining increasing importance in plant breeding, since it provides opportunities to develop improved crops with high precision and speed. However, little is known about the socioeconomic impact of genome editing on agricultural value chains. This qualitative study analyzes how genome-edited crops could affect agriculture value chains. Based on the hypothetical case of producing and processing fungal-resistant and coeliac-safe wheat in Germany, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with associations and companies operating in the value chains of wheat. A value chain analysis and qualitative content analysis were combined to assess the costs and benefits of the crops studied along the value chains of wheat. The results show that the use of fungal-resistant and coeliac-safe wheat can provide benefits at each step of the value chains. Fungal-resistant wheat benefits actors by reducing the problems and costs resulting from fungal-diseases and mycotoxins. Coeliac-safe wheat benefits actors by producing high value-added products, which can be safely consumed by patients suffering from coeliac disease. However, the results also show that low acceptance of GE by society and food retailers poses a significant barrier for the use of genome-edited crops in agricultural value chains.

Meeting report of the OECD conference on "Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture-Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation"

The "OECD Conference on Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture-Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation" was held on the 28-29 June 2018 at the OECD headquarter and conference centre in Paris, France. It brought together policy makers, academia, innovators and other stakeholders involved in the topic, in order to take stock of the current technical developments and implementations of genome editing, as well as their applications in various areas of agriculture and the implications they give rise to (More information on the "OECD Conference on Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture-Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation" can be found on the OECD Genome Editing hub: http://www.oecd.org/environment/genome-editing-agriculture/ ; the hub also contains the detailed conference programme, the biographies of all conference speakers, the detailed conference abstracts, and the presentations of the two-day conference). The conference aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the regulatory considerations raised by products of genome editing, pointing towards a coherent policy approach to facilitate innovations involving genome editing.

An EU Perspective on Biosafety Considerations for Plants Developed by Genome Editing and Other New Genetic Modification Techniques (nGMs)

The question whether new genetic modification techniques (nGM) in plant development might result in non-negligible negative effects for the environment and/or health is significant for the discussion concerning their regulation. However, current knowledge to address this issue is limited for most nGMs, particularly for recently developed nGMs, like genome editing, and their newly emerging variations, e.g., base editing. This leads to uncertainties regarding the risk/safety-status of plants which are developed with a broad range of different nGMs, especially genome editing, and other nGMs such as cisgenesis, transgrafting, haploid induction or reverse breeding. A literature survey was conducted to identify plants developed by nGMs which are relevant for future agricultural use. Such nGM plants were analyzed for hazards associated either (i) with their developed traits and their use or (ii) with unintended changes resulting from the nGMs or other methods applied during breeding. Several traits are likely to become particularly relevant in the future for nGM plants, namely herbicide resistance (HR), resistance to different plant pathogens as well as modified composition, morphology, fitness (e.g., increased resistance to cold/frost, drought, or salinity) or modified reproductive characteristics. Some traits such as resistance to certain herbicides are already known from existing GM crops and their previous assessments identified issues of concern and/or risks, such as the development of herbicide resistant weeds. Other traits in nGM plants are novel; meaning they are not present in agricultural plants currently cultivated with a history of safe use, and their underlying physiological mechanisms are not yet sufficiently elucidated. Characteristics of some genome editing applications, e.g., the small extent of genomic sequence change and their higher targeting efficiency, i.e., precision, cannot be considered an indication of safety per se, especially in relation to novel traits created by such modifications. All nGMs considered here can result in unintended changes of different types and frequencies. However, the rapid development of nGM plants can compromise the detection and elimination of unintended effects. Thus, a case-specific premarket risk assessment should be conducted for nGM plants, including an appropriate molecular characterization to identify unintended changes and/or confirm the absence of unwanted transgenic sequences.

The evolving EU regulatory framework for precision breeding

Plant breeding has always relied on progress in various scientific disciplines to generate and enable access to genetic variation. Until the 1970s, available techniques generated mostly random genetic alterations that were subject to a selection procedure in the plant material. Recombinant nucleic acid technology, however, started a new era of targeted genetic alterations, or precision breeding, enabling a much more targeted approach to trait management. More recently, developments in genome editing are now providing yet more control by enabling alterations at exact locations in the genome. The potential of recombinant nucleic acid technology fueled discussions about potentially new associated risks and, starting in the late 1980s, biosafety legislation for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has developed in the European Union. However, the last decade has witnessed a lot of discussions as to whether or not genome editing and other precision breeding techniques should be encompassed by the EU GMO legislation. A recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union indicated that directed mutagenesis techniques should be subject to the provisions of the GMO Directive, essentially putting many precision breeding techniques in the same regulatory basket. This review outlines the evolving EU regulatory framework for GMOs and discusses some potential routes that the EU may take for the regulation of precision breeding.

Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries

The development of new genetic modification techniques (nGMs), also referred to as "new (breeding) techniques" in other sources, has raised worldwide discussions regarding their regulation. Different existing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cover nGMs to varying degrees. Coverage of nGMs depends mostly on the regulatory trigger. In general two different trigger systems can be distinguished, taking into account either the process applied during development or the characteristics of the resulting product. A key question is whether regulatory frameworks either based on process- or product-oriented triggers are more advantageous for the regulation of nGM applications. We analyzed regulatory frameworks for GMO from different countries covering both trigger systems with a focus on their applicability to plants developed by various nGMs. The study is based on a literature analysis and qualitative interviews with regulatory experts and risk assessors of GMO in the respective countries. The applied principles of risk assessment are very similar in all investigated countries independent of the applied trigger for regulation. Even though the regulatory trigger is either process- or product-oriented, both triggers systems show features of the respective other in practice. In addition our analysis shows that both trigger systems have a number of generic advantages and disadvantages, but neither system can be regarded as superior at a general level. More decisive for the regulation of organisms or products, especially nGM applications, are the variable criteria and exceptions used to implement the triggers in the different regulatory frameworks. There are discussions and consultations in some countries about whether changes in legislation are necessary to establish a desired level of regulation of nGMs. We identified five strategies for countries that desire to regulate nGM applications for biosafety-ranging from applying existing biosafety frameworks without further amendments to establishing new stand-alone legislation. Due to varying degrees of nGM regulation, international harmonization will supposedly not be achieved in the near future. In the context of international trade, transparency of the regulatory status of individual nGM products is a crucial issue. We therefore propose to introduce an international public registry listing all biotechnology products commercially used in agriculture.

The Swedish policy approach to directed mutagenesis in a European context

This review describes the Swedish approach to directed mutagenesis in plants and puts it in a comparative European perspective. Directed mutagenesis is accomplished by a number of genome editing techniques; however, the legal status of these techniques and their resulting products is uncertain in the European Union (EU) as there is no political consensus on whether or not these should be regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A number of cases have developed over the past few years, putting the GMO regulatory framework to the test. These include oilseed rape developed by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis, Arabidopsis developed by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat-Cas9, and the case on mutagenesis for which the French Court requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU. In this review, the involvement of the Swedish Government and governmental authorities in these cases is described and compared with that of other EU member states and/or EU entity statements and reports. Various approaches to the definition of recombinant nucleic acids are also discussed, as this is crucial for the EU GMO definition thus affecting the legal status of products developed by directed mutagenesis.

Cold inducible promoter driven Cre-lox system proved to be highly efficient for marker gene excision in transgenic barley

A Cre-lox based auto-excision strategy has been adapted for barley, capable of cre and selectable marker gene (SMG) removal. The cold inducible wheat promoter called wcs120 was utilised for driving Cre expression. The binary vector was carrying the transgene (uidA) and a so called 'recombination cassette' flanked by the lox sequences. This part included both the recombinase gene and the SMG (bar) under the control of a constitutive promoter. T₀, T₁ and T₂ transgenic plants were subjected to low temperature (at 4°C, 10°C and 12°C) at different developmental stages to induce recombination. The presence of uidA, cre, and bar genes and recombination footprints were studied by PCR and DNA sequencing, while cre transcription was followed by qRT-PCR. These analyses indicated that, cold treatment of the germinating seeds (4°C for 3days) followed by plant growing at higher temperature (24°C) has been the most efficient (90-100%), and this treatment lead to heritable changes in the genome. Thermal separation of Cre accumulation (at low temperature) from Cre enzyme activity (at higher temperature) could have prevented the premature excision of its own encoding gene, and lead to high expression level thereby increasing recombination frequency.

Science and Postmodernism: From Right-Thinking to Soft-Despotism

Given that some groups want to force scientists into "public engagement", it is legitimate to engage in a debate about the ideology of those groups, which I define as postmodern. Postmodernism tries to impose social coercive tools in the form of 'democratization of science' or 'Responsible Research and Innovation'.

New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology

In this review, current EU GMO regulations are subjected to a point-by point analysis to determine their suitability for agriculture in modern Europe. Our analysis concerns present GMO regulations as well as suggestions for possible new regulations for genome editing and New Breeding Techniques (for which no regulations presently exist). Firstly, the present GMO regulations stem from the early days of recombinant DNA and are not adapted to current scientific understanding on this subject. Scientific understanding of GMOs has changed and these regulations are now, not only unfit for their original purpose, but, the purpose itself is now no longer scientifically valid. Indeed, they defy scientific, economic, and even common, sense. A major EU regulatory preconception is that GM crops are basically different from their parent crops. Thus, the EU regulations are "process based" regulations that discriminate against GMOs simply because they are GMOs. However current scientific evidence shows a blending of classical crops and their GMO counterparts with no clear demarcation line between them. Canada has a "product based" approach and determines the safety of each new crop variety independently of the process used to obtain it. We advise that the EC re-writes it outdated regulations and moves toward such a product based approach.  Secondly, over the last few years new genomic editing techniques (sometimes called New Breeding Techniques) have evolved. These techniques are basically mutagenesis techniques that can generate genomic diversity and have vast potential for crop improvement. They are not GMO based techniques (any more than mutagenesis is a GMO technique), since in many cases no new DNA is introduced. Thus they cannot simply be lumped together with GMOs (as many anti-GMO NGOs would prefer). The EU currently has no regulations to cover these new techniques. In this review, we make suggestions as to how these new gene edited crops may be regulated. The EU is at a turning point where the wrong decision could destroy European agricultural competitively for decades to come.