CRISPR gene-editing for crops: Precision tool or new risk?

The European Parliament is expected to approve new rules to make it easier for farmers to grow crops, genetically edited using new genomic techniques (NGTs) . The vote on NGTs is scheduled for June 17.

If the EU gives the green light, it would mark a big policy shift. Brussels has maintained a cautious stance on genetically modified organisms  since its regulation of GMOs began in the 1990s.

From 'Frankenfoods' to CRISPR crops

Thirty years ago, GMO agricultural products were often dubbed "Frankenstein foods" or "Frankenfoods." Environmentalists and certain members of the media warned that GMOs could cause allergic reactions, lead to antibiotic resistance , and other long-term health effects.

Critics argued that genetically modified seeds could increase corporate control over farmers, and that modified genes would leak into non-GM crops and the wider environment. And the European Union regulated the technology more tightly than many other parts of the world.

The Frankenstein nickname reflected concerns that, in traditional GMOs, genes from one species are introduced into another through a process known as transgenics.

Argentines eat transgenic bread

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Novel genetic techniques (NGTs) are different. With many NGT applications, no foreign gene is added. Instead, existing genes are altered in the plant, using CRISPR, the Nobel Prize-winning gene editing tool that has made it possible to cut out and replace defective genes, essentially rewriting an organism's genome.

NGTs: Natural changes with a nudge?

Under the new EU legislation, there would be two groups of NGTs:

NGT-1s

NGT-2s

NGT-1s include crops with "a limited number and type of changes, and which could have occurred through conventional breeding," according to a European Parliament summary . These would be treated much like conventional crops.

But the new rules would not apply to NGT-2 plants, which are defined as having more than 20 genetic modifications or those that contain specific, excluded traits, such as herbicide tolerance.

"If a CRISPR-edited plant contains no foreign DNA and carries only changes that could also arise through natural mutation processes, then from a scientific point of view, there is no convincing reason to treat it like a classical transgenic plant," said Detlef Weigel, director of the molecular biology department at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biology.

"The EU is therefore moving in the right direction by distinguishing between NGT-1 and NGT-2 plants," Weigel told DW.

"What is important, however, is that the categories remain scientifically meaningful, transparent and verifiable," he added. "We need regulation that is scientifically grounded, proportionate and practically workable."

Supporters of the change claim that making NGT-1s available to farmers could help them navigate climate change , enabling the development of crops that are more resistant to drought, pests and disease. They say NGT-1s could also reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides.

But not all scientists agree that the technology should be treated differently from conventional GMOs.

GABA: Not just another tomato

Michael Antoniou, professor of molecular genetics at King's College London, said gene-edited plants are fundamentally different from conventionally bred crops because the CRISPR process itself can cause unintended changes in the new plant's DNA.

"The scientific evidence shows that when considered as a whole, the CRISPR gene editing process causes large-scale random, unintended sites of damage to the DNA of the plant, and [those sites of damage] can number in the hundreds or thousands," Antoniou told DW.

Antoniou cites GABA tomatoes as an example. They were the world's first commercially available CRISPR gene-edited food.

Cultivated in Japan, GABA tomatoes contain high amounts of the neurotransmitter GABA and are marketed to help lower blood pressure, improve sleep and relieve temporary stress.

"Yes, [they look] like a normal tomato, but what unintentional changes to its biochemistry and composition have also taken place?" he asked. "We don't know."

Could designer tomatoes solve global vitamin D deficiency?

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Antoniou argues that the EU's proposed rules do not adequately account for unintended genetic changes that may occur during the gene editing process. He believes developers should be obliged to use molecular profiling methods to determine how the wider genome has been altered.

Altering crop genes is 'nothing new'

Weigel said CRISPR is an improvement on older methods used by plant breeders to create new crops, such as the introduction of chemicals and radiation to induce mutations. These methods, he said, are often less predictable than the results of CRISPR.

"CRISPR is more precise in this respect…