Regulation to permit gene-edited plants has just passed in European Parliament, allowing genetic changes that don’t introduce foreign DNA.
The new rules aim to improve the food system by allowing gene-edited crop varieties that are more climate and pest resistant, yield more produce, or need fewer chemicals to grow.
Plants with few changes—similar to those that could result from ordinary breeding or mutation—face fewer restrictions, while others remain controlled under current rules for Genetically Modified Organisms.
The Science Media Centre asked local experts to comment on the implications for trade and NZ’s Gene Tech Bill.
Melanie Mark-Shadbolt (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou, Te Arawa, Te Ātiawa, Rangitane, Ngāti Raukawa), Tumu Whakarae CE, Te Tira Whakamātaki, comments:
“The EU Parliament move to deregulate gene-edited crops matters to us because we tend to follow their path. In the past, Europe’s caution on synthetic biology has shaped our own caution, and if that shifts it’s likely we (or our policy makers) will want to follow.
“But our research at Te Tira Whakamātaki shows New Zealanders, including Māori, are far from united. Some see gene technologies as a potentially important tool for biodiversity and pest management, many remain uncertain. Māori respondents told us consistently that decisions on emerging technologies must be guided by Te Tiriti, by tikanga, and by meaningful iwi and hapū involvement at the table, not after the fact. The Gene Technology Bill submissions showed the same caution – of roughly 14,000, close to 80 percent opposed and barely half a percent supported the Bill.
“We are watching the cost of getting this wrong in real time. Colossal Biosciences’ moa “de-extinction” has generated real tension, across rūnanga, among other iwi, and within the science sector, because social licence was assumed, not earned.
“And these are not new tensions. We have been arguing over the role of Māori, Te Tiriti and mātauranga in our science system since the first ‘scientist’ arrived in Aotearoa, and we have not resolved them. Following the EU before we have done that work would be a mistake.
“So, the challenge for Aotearoa is not whether synthetic biology is adopted, but whether those decisions earn public trust, protect our market access, and reflect the values of the communities most affected – that includes Māori. Europe can set its own course, but we must set our own.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflicts.”
Chris Winefield, Associate Professor in Plant Genomics and Molecular Biology, Lincoln University, comments:
“It is pleasing to see that the EU, which holds a similar strict view of the risk assessment of GM technologies to New Zealand, are going to treat genome-edited plants that possess alterations indistinguishable from those generated by standard breeding approaches as equivalent to breeding-derived plant lines.
“I am hopeful that this will encourage Parliamentarians to adopt a similar view when considering the Gene Technology Bill. If one of the toughest regulatory regimes for GM outside of NZ has duly considered the risks and benefits of such approaches and, on balance, has come to the view that this technology produces plants that are of no greater risk than traditional breeding approaches, it is hard to see how Parliament can rationally justify the continued restriction of these technologies.
“There are potentially significant economic implications of this change in the EU stance on gene-edited plants.
“It is very likely that once these changes are enacted, the EU companies will rapidly deploy plants with a range of enhanced characteristics. The headline targets would be plants with higher yields, with greater nutritional value, with lower requirements for water, fertiliser, and chemical protection.
“This will mean we will struggle to compete economically in these markets as, without a similar change in stance in NZ, we will be forced to continue to use genetically and productively inferior plant lines.
“The increasing threat of non-tariff trade barriers based on chemical residue levels we cannot meet due to our continued reliance on chemical control of pests and diseases is something I feel we should not ignore.
“We have an opportunity to reset the regulatory framework, which would allow us to meet the dual challenges of climate change and the need for increased sustainability of our production systems. The EU is showing us a way forward, and I hope we take heed for the sake of the environment and the economic well-being of NZ.”
Conflict of interest statement: “The comments and views expressed here are entirely my own and do not represent the position or official stance of Lincoln University. I declare that I have no direct financial or personal conflicts of interest with this opinion. However, in the interest of full transparency, I note that I actively conduct academic and professional research involving GM technologies for plant improvement.”
Dr Revel Drummond, Molecular Biologist, Bioeconomy Science Institute, comments:
“The EU has passed a complex legislative framework to regulate the use of gene technology in plants for agriculture and food production. It will bring the EU in line with the many other systems for gene technology regulation around the globe.
“The new rules allow for three levels of regulation, NGT-1, NGT-2 and GMO. Each level will have different requirements before plants can be released into the field and onto the plate. NGT-1 plants are those made using simple gene editing techniques but also include cisgenic plants.
“NGT-2 plants have complex gene edits and GMO plants will contain transgenes. This system of regulatory tiers is very similar to what is proposed by the Gene Technology Bill that is being considered by the NZ government. Indeed the tiers even include the same types of gene editing with approximately the same level of control, although in NZ it seems cisgenic plants may be considered GMOs.
“This legislation will enable EU seed producers, farmers and consumers to benefit from enhanced plant varieties produced using these tools closing a competitive gap with jurisdictions that have moved earlier to embrace gene editing in agriculture.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I use gene technologies in the course of my work at the Bioeconomy Science Institute.”
Our colleagues at the Taiwan SMC have also gathered comments.
Yi-Yin Tu (杜宜殷), Professor at Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, National Taiwan University, comments:
Q1. What are the NGT1 and NGT2 referred to in the regulation, and how should we understand the difference between them?
“Category-1 New Genomic Technique plants (NGT1) are plants and their products obtained by targeted mutagenesis such as gene editing, cisgenesis, or intragenesis, whose gene-sequence changes can be achieved through natural mutation or conventional breeding methods; they are regarded as equivalent to the results of conventional breeding and are exempt from GMO regulation. Category-2 New Genomic Technique plants (NGT2) involve more complex or large-scale genetic changes and must still comply with existing GMO regulations.”
Q2. What impacts might the amendment of the regulation bring? How can the environmental impact and safety of gene-edited crops be assessed?
“The amendment of the regulation can drive the application of Category-1 new genomic techniques in crop breeding, in order to respond to the challenges of climate change and food security and to accelerate the development of disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, high-yielding, and other crops.”
Q3. Are there any aspects of the European rules that Taiwan could learn from?
“Taiwan could follow the European rules and open up the application of Category-1 new genomic techniques in crop breeding, which would help Taiwan’s R&D of new stress-tolerant varieties and maintain its global R&D competitiveness.”
Q4. Based on your research experience, what potential do gene-edited crops have? What are the prerequisites for their application? What are the limitations?
“Gene-editing technology can precisely modify the genes of crops and greatly shorten breeding time. Its application potential includes enhancing crops’ ability to withstand stress and adapt to climate change, reducing the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, increasing the yield of agricultural products and optimizing their quality, being environmentally friendly, and improving agricultural sustainability. Its limitations are that it is difficult to edit simultaneously multiple genes that control quantitative (polygenic) traits, and that tissue-culture regeneration or genetic transformation is rather difficult in some crops, which limits the application of gene editing in these types of crops.”
Q5. What gene-editing technologies are currently being developed in Taiwan? What practical difficulties are there in their application?
“The gene-editing technology currently being developed in Taiwan is mainly the CRISPR/Cas system. The practical difficulties in application include the fact that, for horticultural crops, tissue-culture regeneration is mostly difficult or the success rate of gene transformation is low, and that polyploidy, where present, reduces the effectiveness of gene editing.”
Q6. What is the difference between “gene editing” and “genetic modification” technologies? Is there any difference when applied to crops versus food? How can the safety of gene editing, genetic modification, and other biotechnologies be continuously tracked and assessed?
““Genetic modification” technology randomly inserts a foreign sequence into the genome of the target crop so that the crop acquires a new trait. This foreign sequence is easy to detect, but scientists cannot control where it is inserted, so a large amount of screening is needed to eliminate failed individuals, and breeding takes longer. “Gene editing” technology can avoid adding a foreign sequence, instead using gene scissors such as CRISPR-Cas9 to precisely fine-tune, delete, or switch off a particular gene and change its original function; breeding time is significantly shorter, and because natural mutation or conventional breeding can also produce the same result, its regulation is close to that of conventional breeding.”
Q7. If Taiwan wishes to properly regulate the use of gene editing and other biotechnologies in the future, what assessments and considerations need to be included? What fields of experts should be brought in to discuss this together?
“In order to properly regulate the use of gene editing and other biotechnologies, I suggest that at the technical and scientific level one should assess the precision and off-target effects of gene editing, mosaicism, and residual foreign DNA, and understand the mechanisms governing gene editing; at the ecological and food-safety level one should assess the possibility of gene flow and ecological contamination, the generation of novel allergens and toxicity, and the substantial equivalence of nutritional composition; and at the economic, regulatory, and farmers’-rights level one should assess patent-licensing models, intellectual property rights and patent monopolies, and alignment with international trade and regulation. The fields of experts who should discuss the regulations together should include molecular biologists and plant geneticists, crop and horticultural breeding experts, plant pathologists and insect ecologists, food science and toxicology experts, agricultural economics and intellectual property experts, science communication experts, and farmer representatives.”
Declared interests: No conflicts of interest.