The first systematic study on the differences between conventional plant breeding and new genetic engineering (NGT) has now been published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences after an external review. The study includes examples such as NGT strawberries, switch grass, camelina, corn, poplars, rice, lettuce, mustard, tomatoes and wheat. The genetic changes involved are often minor, yet the results differ significantly from those achieved through conventional breeding.
Molecular mechanisms protect the genetic material of plants (and animals) from mutations occurring randomly and everywhere all at once. These mechanisms make a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective. They stabilize the characteristics of species, but also allow for adaptations. However, these mechanisms also impose certain limitations on the results of plant breeding to date. For gene scissors such as CRISPR/Cas, also known as recombinant enzymatic mutagens (REM), the molecular mechanisms are often easy to overcome. NGTs therefore enable the introduction of genetic changes and gene combinations that are virtually impossible to achieve with conventional plant breeding (including random mutagenesis).
These findings highlight the need for risk assessment: NGT plants that are new to the environment must be assessed for risks before being released. Otherwise, negative impacts on the environment could jeopardize the potential contribution of NGT plants to sustainability and cause irreversible damage to biodiversity. The risks would also affect the future of European agriculture if, for example, insufficiently tested NGT plants (e.g., from experimental field trials) enter the gene pool used by breeders.
Against this backdrop, the current EU proposal seems particularly grotesque. According to this proposal, NGT plants are to be largely equated with conventionally-bred varieties. In short, a threshold of 20 genetic changes would be set to exempt NGT plants from environmental risk assessment. However, such ‘magic thresholds’ for a certain number of genetic changes are completely unsuitable for the future regulation of NGT plants. They also contradict current scientific knowledge.
Testbiotech warns that the EU is in danger of abandoning fundamental scientific standards and imposing considerable risks on future generations. Whether it’s climate change, PFAS chemicals, or genetic engineering, the underlying scientific facts have to be investigated thoroughly to finally achieve some good regulation.
Furthermore, Testbiotech is concerned that pressure is being exerted on individual members of the EU Parliament who are advocating for better solutions. In particular, the current Council Presidency, the Danish government, seems determined to pass the current proposal into law without giving sufficient consideration to the protection of health and the environment.
Contact:
Christoph Then, info@testbiotech.org, Tel + 49 151 54638040
Further information: