Genetic Alterations That Do or Do Not Occur Naturally; Consequences for Genome Edited Organisms in the Context of Regulatory Oversight

Mind the (CRISPR) gaps: The European Commission's proposal for the use of NGTs in the EU

The proposal by the European Commission to regulate New Genome Technique (NGT) plants is a leap forward, but it does not revise the current legislation on GMOs and includes many inconsistencies that may hinder the adoption of specific NGTs.

Animal Transgenesis and Cloning: Combined Development and Future Perspectives

The revolution in animal transgenesis began in 1981 and continues to become more efficient, cheaper, and faster to perform. New genome editing technologies, especially CRISPR-Cas9, are leading to a new era of genetically modified or edited organisms. Some researchers advocate this new era as the time of synthetic biology or re-engineering. Nonetheless, we are witnessing advances in high-throughput sequencing, artificial DNA synthesis, and design of artificial genomes at a fast pace. These advances in symbiosis with animal cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) allow the development of improved livestock, animal models of human disease, and heterologous production of bioproducts for medical applications. In the context of genetic engineering, SCNT remains a useful technology to generate animals from genetically modified cells. This chapter addresses these fast-developing technologies driving this biotechnological revolution and their association with animal cloning technology.

Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods? Why and why not? A review

Global population is increasing at an alarming rate, posing a threat on the supplies of basic needs and services. However, population increase does not seem to be a common agendum of the global scientists and political leaders. People in the developed countries are more concerned about new technologies and their products. Pseudo-threats related to the uncertainties of genetic engineering of crops and their outputs present on consumers are more audible and controversial than the real difficulties the world is experiencing at the moment and in the future. This review presents brief summaries of the real reasons to worry about and the uncertainties about genetically modified organisms. This article also presents the real uncertainties shared by consumers and scientists with respect to the past, present, and future of genetically engineered organisms. Developments in the field of precision genetics in the recent years and the implications on regulatory, breeding, and socio-cultural dimensions of the global settings are included.

Regulatory approaches for genome edited agricultural plants in select countries and jurisdictions around the world

Genome editing in agriculture and food is leading to new, improved crops and other products. Depending on the regulatory approach taken in each country or region, commercialization of these crops and products may or may not require approval from the respective regulatory authorities. This paper describes the regulatory landscape governing genome edited agriculture and food products in a selection of countries and regions.

Revisions to USDA biotechnology regulations: The SECURE rule

In keeping with the directive in Executive Order 13874 (Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products) to adopt regulatory approaches that are proportionate to risk and avoid arbitrary distinctions across like products, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) revised its biotechnology regulations by promulgating the Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, Responsible, and Efficient (SECURE) rule. Specifically, the SECURE rule 1) establishes exemptions for plants modified by genetic engineering where the modification could otherwise have been made through conventional breeding, 2) uses risk posed by the introduced trait to determine whether an organism is regulated, rather than relying on whether the organism was developed using a plant pest, and 3) provides a mechanism for a rapid initial review to efficiently distinguish plants developed using genetic engineering that do not pose plausible pathways to increased plant pest risk from those that do. As a result of the focused oversight on potentially riskier crops developed using genetic engineering, USDA is expected to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its oversight program. The reduced regulatory burden is expected to promote innovation by expanding the number and diversity of developers to include smaller businesses and academics and to increase the number and variety of traits being developed through biotechnology.

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.

Regulation of Synthetic Biology: Developments Under the Convention on Biological Diversity and Its Protocols

The primary international forum deliberating the regulation of "synthetic biology" is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), along with its subsidiary agreements concerned with the biosafety of living modified organisms (LMOs; Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the CBD), and access and benefit sharing in relation to genetic resources (Nagoya Protocol to the CBD). This discussion has been underway for almost 10 years under the CBD agenda items of "synthetic biology" and "new and emerging issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity," and more recently within the scope of Cartagena Protocol topics including risk assessment and risk management, and "digital sequence information" jointly with the Nagoya Protocol. There is no internationally accepted definition of "synthetic biology," with it used as an umbrella term in this forum to capture "new" biotechnologies and "new" applications of established biotechnologies, whether actual or conceptual. The CBD debates are characterized by polarized views on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for "new" types of LMOs, including the scope of the current regulatory frameworks, and procedures and tools for risk assessment and risk mitigation and/or management. This paper provides an overview of international developments in biotechnology regulation, including the application of the Cartagena Protocol and relevant policy developments, and reviews the development of the synthetic biology debate under the CBD and its Protocols, including the major issues expected in the lead up to and during the 2020 Biodiversity Conference.

Roads Forward for European GMO Policy-Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform

This article gives an overview of legal and procedural uncertainties regarding genome edited organisms and possible ways forward for European GMO policy. After a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ judgment of 25 July 2018, C-528/16), organisms obtained by techniques of genome editing are GMOs and subject to the same obligations as transgenic organisms. Uncertainties emerge if genome edited organisms cannot be distinguished from organisms bred by conventional techniques, such as crossing or random mutagenesis. In this case, identical organisms can be subject to either GMO law or exempt from regulation because of the use of a technique that cannot be identified. Regulatory agencies might not be able to enforce GMO law for such cases in the long term. As other jurisdictions do not regulate such organisms as GMOs, accidental imports might occur and undermine European GMO regulation. In the near future, the EU Commission as well as European and national regulatory agencies will decide on how to apply the updated interpretation of the law. In order to mitigate current legal and procedural uncertainties, a first step forward lies in updating all guidance documents to specifically address genome editing specifically address genome editing, including a solution for providing a unique identifier. In part, the authorization procedure for GMO release can be tailored to different types of organisms by making use of existing flexibilities in GMO law. However, only an amendment to the regulations that govern the process of authorization for GMO release can substantially lower the burden for innovators. In a second step, any way forward has to aim at amending, supplementing or replacing the European GMO Directive (2001/18/EC). The policy options presented in this article presuppose political readiness for reform. This may not be realistic in the current political situation. However, if the problems of current GMO law are just ignored, European competitiveness and research in green biotechnology will suffer.

Risk Assessment and Regulation of Plants Modified by Modern Biotechniques: Current Status and Future Challenges

This review describes the current status and future challenges of risk assessment and regulation of plants modified by modern biotechniques, namely genetic engineering and genome editing. It provides a general overview of the biosafety and regulation of genetically modified plants and details different regulatory frameworks with a focus on the European situation. The environmental risk and safety assessment of genetically modified plants is explained, and aspects of toxicological assessments are discussed, especially the controversial debate in Europe on the added scientific value of untargeted animal feeding studies. Because RNA interference (RNAi) is increasingly explored for commercial applications, the risk and safety assessment of RNAi-based genetically modified plants is also elucidated. The production, detection, and identification of genome-edited plants are described. Recent applications of modern biotechniques, namely synthetic biology and gene drives, are discussed, and a short outlook on the future follows.

The Judgment of the CJEU of 25 July 2018 on Mutagenesis: Interpretation and Interim Legislative Proposal

The Judgment of 25 July 2018 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was optimistically awaited by breeders and supporters of agricultural biotechnology, but shortly after the press release advancing the Judgment, hope turned into frustration. Opinions on how to frame the New Breeding Techniques (NBT) in the context of Directive 2001/18/EC were issued before the Judgment, while proposals to assist the EU legislator to amend the regime driven by the Directive have been also provided afterwards by scientists and institutional bodies around the EU. However, they do not seem to have paid so much attention to the Judgment itself. This paper focuses on the Judgment. It finds out that while the impacts of the Judgment on the NBT might have been slightly overvalued, its potential negative effects on techniques of random mutagenesis and varieties breed through them have been generally underestimated if not absolutely overlooked. The analysis also shows that the Judgment does not preempt the possibility to exempt certain applications of some NBT from the scope of Directive 2001/18/EC, and, in fact, ODM, SDN1, and SDN2 might be, under certain conditions, easily exempted from its scope without the need of a deep legislative revolution nor even the amendment of Directive 2001/18/EC. As regards techniques of random mutagenesis and mutant varieties bred by means of those techniques, until action is taken by Member States (if finally taken), no real limitations upon them are to be feared. However, if Member States start to consider the path opened by the CJEU, then their regulation at an EU level should be readily explored in order to avoid further negative effects on plant breeding as well as on the free movement inside the EU of those varieties and the products thereof.