Beyond GMOs: Europe needs to update biotech regulation

By Caroline SCOTT-THOMAS contact

- Last updated on GMT

"If the way in which the EU regulates biotechnology does not evolve in line with our knowledge of plant genomes, Europe will continue to fall behind rest of the world when it comes to translational plant research and modern crop breeding," Jones wrote.
"If the way in which the EU regulates biotechnology does not evolve in line with our knowledge of plant genomes, Europe will continue to fall behind rest of the world when it comes to translational plant research and modern crop breeding," Jones wrote.

Related tags: Dna

The European Union needs to update the way it regulates biotechnology as advances are made in plant breeding – or risk disrupting trade in commodity crops, according to Professor Huw Jones of Rothamsted Research.

Jones argues for more legal clarity on genome editing to avoid stifling innovation and investment in the technology in Europe. Genome editing cuts and alters specific existing gene sequences in plants – as opposed to genetic modification, which may result from the insertion of DNA from elsewhere. Potential applications for the technology include food crops with reduced allergenicity or enhanced nutritional quality, as well as plant disease and drought resistance.

“Genome editing has already been established as a powerful tool in research,”​ Jones wrote in a commentary published in Nature Plants​on Thursday.The extent to which this technology can breathe new life into the world of plant breeding will largely depend on how genome-edited crops are regulated at an international level.”

The United States has indicated that it does not consider genome editing to be the same as genetic modification for regulatory purposes, but the question has yet to be decided in Europe.

Jones told FoodNavigator: "If the EU took a regulatory position that was out of step with the rest of the world it could cause disruption in the trade of commodity crops with obvious negative implications for price and supply."

He said it was appropriate for new crop varieties to be subject to risk assessments using conventional crops for comparison, but the way in which they were developed was not an aspect that should be used to determine their safety.

“Continuing to use the ‘process’ of genetic improvement, rather than the novelty of the product, as the basis for risk assessment and regulation is scientifically illogical and short-sighted,”​ he wrote.

UK government-funded research body the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has also called for Europe to assess safety of new crop varieties according to their characteristics, rather than the method by which they are produced.

The BBSRC said in a position paper​ in October: “While it is important to guard against the notion of a simple “technological fix” to the many challenges facing agriculture, it is equally important to reap the benefits of available and emerging technologies where they can contribute effectively.”

 

Source: Nature Plants

DOI: 10.1038/NPLANTS.2014.11

“Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing”

Author: Huw D. Jones

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

Reduce Sugar. Add Fibre. Use VitaFiber™ IMO

Reduce Sugar. Add Fibre. Use VitaFiber™ IMO

LEHVOSS Nutrition– Gee Lawson | 28-Feb-2019 | Data Sheet

VitaFiber™ IMO is a plant-based food ingredient made from tapioca or pea starches and belongs to the special group of carbohydrates called oligosaccharides....

Metal Detectors versus X-Ray Systems

Metal Detectors versus X-Ray Systems

Fortress Technology | 07-Jan-2019 | Technical / White Paper

Fortress Technology tackles the equipment options in the most widespread food and packaging application scenarios and cuts through the confusion on the...

Related suppliers

1 comment

Genome editing is GM according to CODEX

Posted by Fran Murrell,

Genome editing is GM breeding according to world food standards body CODEX. They are "in
vitro nucleic acid technologies,". Therefore countries could require safety assessments. This could cause trade problems for exporting US farmers. It would be nice to hear about the real agricultural successes which are based on agroecological farming. Increased crop yields, reduced farmer poverty, better nutrition, biodiversity protection and increased carbon storage in the soil leading to increase water retention and a cooling of the climate. Instead of this we repeatedly are pushed the latest dodgy, badly understood technologies so that patents can be profited from. How much longer can the disastrous food system that has brought us obesity, diabetes, dead soil, chemical poisoning, dead zones, farmer bankruptcy and risky GM crops keep going. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

Report abuse

Follow us

Featured Events

View more

Products

View more

Webinars