A Universally Acceptable View on the Adoption of Improved Plant Breeding Techniques

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.

Responsible decision-making for plant research and breeding innovations in the European Union

Plant research and breeding has made substantial technical progress over the past few decades, indicating a potential for tremendous societal impact. Due to this potential, the development of policies and legislation on plant breeding and the technical progress should preferably involve all relevant stakeholders. However, we argue here that there is a substantial imbalance in the European Union (EU) regarding the influence of the various stakeholder groups on policy makers. We use evidence from three examples in order to show that the role of science is overlooked: 1) important delays in the decision process concerning the authorization of genetically modified (GM) maize events, 2) the significance attributed to non-scientific reasons in new legislation concerning the prohibition of GM events in EU member states, and 3) failure of the European Commission to deliver legal guidance to new plant breeding techniques despite sufficient scientific evidence and advisory reports. We attribute this imbalance to misinformation and misinterpretation of public perceptions and a disproportionate attention to single outlier reports, and we present ideas on how to establish a better stakeholder balance within this field.

Potential impact of genome editing in world agriculture

Changeable biotic and abiotic stress factors that affect crop growth and productivity, alongside a drive to reduce the unintended consequences of plant protection products, will demand highly adaptive farm management practices as well as access to continually improved seed varieties. The former is limited mainly by cost and, in theory, could be implemented in relatively short time frames. The latter is fundamentally a longer-term activity where genome editing can play a major role. The first targets for genome editing will inevitably be loss-of-function alleles, because these are straightforward to generate. In addition, they are likely to focus on traits under simple genetic control and where the results of modification are already well understood from null alleles in existing gene pools or other knockout or silencing approaches such as induced mutations or RNA interference. In the longer term, genome editing will underpin more fundamental changes in agricultural performance and food quality, and ultimately will merge with the tools and philosophies of synthetic biology to underpin and enable new cellular systems, processes and organisms completely. The genetic changes required for simple allele edits or knockout phenotypes are synonymous with those found naturally in conventional breeding material and should be regulated as such. The more radical possibilities in the longer term will need societal engagement along with appropriate safety and ethical oversight.