Abstracts, Papers &

Resources

Page 6 of 14

FarmingLegislation & RegulationScience & TechnologySustainability

Broadening the GMO risk assessment in the EU for genome editing technologies in agriculture

Katharina Kawall, Janet Cotter, Christoph Then

Publication date: 11/08/2020

Here, we describe the range of specific unintended effects associated with genome editing. We examine the considerable possibilities to change the genome of plants and animals with SDN-1 and SDN-2 genome editing (i.e. without the insertion of genes conferring the novel trait) and show that genome editing techniques are able to produce a broad spectrum of novel traits that, thus far, were not possible to be obtained using conventional breeding techniques. We consider that the current EU risk assessment guidance for GMOs requires revision and broadening to capture all potential genomic irregularities arising from genome editing and suggest additional tools to assist the risk assessment of genome-edited plants and animals for the environment and food/animal feed in the EU.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Science & TechnologySustainability

Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-Edited Crops, and the Politics of Sustainability

Jennifer Clapp, Sarah-Louise Ruder

Publication date: 01/08/2020

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

This article analyzes the rise of precision technologies for agriculture—specifically digital farming and plant genome editing—and their implications for the politics of environmental sustainability in the agrifood sector. We map out opposing views in the emerging debate over the environmental aspects of these technologies: while proponents see them as vital tools for environmental sustainability, critics view them as antithetical to their own agroecological vision of sustainable agriculture. We argue that key insights from the broader literature on the social effects of technological change—in particular, technological lock-in, the double-edged nature of technology, and uneven power relations—help to explain the political dynamics of this debate. Our analysis highlights the divergent perspectives regarding how these technologies interact with environmental problems, as well as the risks and opportunities they present. Yet, as we argue in the article, developments so far suggest that these dynamics are not always straightforward in practice.

Resource type: article: Web Page

FarmingFood systemsSustainability

Farm to Fork Strategy

European Commission

Publication date: 01/05/2020

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

The Farm to Fork Strategy is a new comprehensive approach to how Europeans value food sustainability. It is
an opportunity to improve lifestyles, health, and the environment. The creation of a favourable food environment
that makes it easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets will benefit consumers’ health and quality of life,
and reduce health-related costs for society.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Citizen StakeholdersLegislation & RegulationPlant & Animal BreedingScience & TechnologySustainability

Democratizing CRISPR? Stories, practices, and politics of science and governance on the agricultural gene editing frontier

Maywa Montenegro de Wit

Publication date: 25/02/2020

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Many trends in agricultural biotechnology have extended fluidly from the first era of genetic modification using recombinant DNA techniques to the era of gene editing. But the high-profile, explicit, and assertive discourse of democratization with gene editing — especially CRISPR-Cas9 — is something new.

In this paper, I draw on semi-structured interviews with gene editors, policy analysts, and communications experts as well as with critical academic and civil society experts. I use Science and Technology Studies and political ecology lenses to unpack democratization in three main parts.

First is democratizing discourses: On what grounds is CRISPR said to be democratic? Who is saying so? How do dissident communities respond to these narratives? Second is agricultural applications, with a focus on the Innovative Genomics Institute’s work in developing gene-edited food crops, including a case of saveable clonal hybrid rice. Third is governance, where I contrast US Department of Agriculture regulations and the CRISPRcon conference as “closed” and “invited” spaces, respectively, for democratic participation.

Next, I argue that “created spaces,” in which power is held by typically delegitimized actors and ideas, offer an opening for working out democracy on the terrain of biotechnology. I conclude with a set of principles and practices for CRISPR governance based on the idea that democratization of biotechnology requires epistemic justice. By gathering multiple, partial knowledges together, we move beyond narrow risk-benefit framings to better evaluate not just what CRISPR is and does, but what democracy means and whom it serves.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

ConservationSustainability

Transferring the laboratory to the wild: An emerging era of environmental genetic engineering

Eva Sirinathsinghji

Publication date: 01/11/2019

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

The last 30 years of commercialisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have thus far been restricted to a limited number of species, predominantly maize and soy.

Developers are reacting to plateauing global adoption rates of these commercialised first-generation genetically engineered (GE) crops, which are plagued by declining trait efficacy and sustained market rejection, by reinvigorating efforts to usher in new crops and organisms.

New genetic engineering techniques such as genome editing and new delivery techniques have facilitated an emerging trend to genetically engineer organisms in the wild, moving the engineering process to agroecosystems and beyond, essentially converting the environment into the laboratory.

Previous techniques originally developed as research tools in contained-use settings, or for gene therapy in clinical settings, may be released into the environment to genetically engineer agricultural and wild organisms unchecked.

This briefing form the Third World Network summarises presents examples of research and applications.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Legislation & Regulation

Brexit food safety legislation and potential implications for UK trade: the devil in the details

Lydgate E, Chloe Anthony C and Millstone E

Publication date: 31/10/2019

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

This Briefing Paper from the UK Trade Policy Observatory and Chatham House examines an array of post-Brexit food safety legislation, covering pesticides, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), food additives and microbiological food safety.

The UK Government has committed itself to incorporating EU law unchanged as the starting point for the post-Brexit regulatory regime. However, EU institutions underpin UK food safety legislation to the extent that detaching UK law and policy making unavoidably constitutes major legislative reform. More concerningly, our analysis suggests that the UK’s post-Brexit food safety rules fall short of the level of protection currently provided by the EU: in some cases, they give ministers broad discretion to make future changes without equivalent scrutiny.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Legislation & Regulation

An overview of regulatory approaches to genome editing in agriculture

Friedrichs S et al

Publication date: 26/07/2019

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

The “OECD Conference on Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture – Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation”, brought together policy makers, academia, innovators and other stakeholders involved in the topic, in order to take stock of the existing research and applications of genome editing, and to thereby provide science-based input to the discussion of the potential impact of genome editing in the context of overarching agricultural and food policies.

The conference provided a timely opportunity for information exchange between scientific experts, risk assessors, policy makers, regulators, private sector innovators and other stakeholders from around the world.

In this paper, we summarise the conference session on the “Regulatory aspects” concerning genome editing (Session 3), during which government representatives from six different countries around the world reported on the policy frameworks pertaining to genome editing in their respective countries, and discussed their specificities, as well as the common issues encountered.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Legislation & RegulationPlant & Animal BreedingScience & Technology

European science community urges rethink on genome editing

John Innes Centre and 126 research institutions

Publication date: 25/07/2019

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

Scientists from the John Innes Centre and The Sainsbury Laboratory today joined colleagues from across Europe in calling for an urgent rethink of EU legislation on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

An open statement signed by 126 research institutes says that scientists and plant breeders in the European Union should be enabled to use gene editing with CRISPR as a faster and more efficient way of producing food sustainably.

Aimed at the newly-elected European Parliament and European Commission, the statement comes one year to the day that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that plants obtained by modern forms of mutagenesis, of which gene-editing is an example, are not exempted from the EU GMO Directive.

Resource type: article: Web Page

Sustainability

Creating a Sustainable Food Future – A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050

World Resources Institute

Publication date: 17/07/2019

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

As the global population grows from 7 billion in 2010 to a projected 9.8 billion in 2050, and incomes grow across the developing world, overall food demand is on course to increase by more than 50 percent, and demand for animal-based foods by nearly 70 percent. Yet today, hundreds of millions of people remain hungry, agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land, and agriculture and related land-use change generate one-quarter of annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This synthesis report proposes a menu of options that could allow the world to achieve a sustainable food future by meeting growing demands for food, avoiding deforestation, and reforesting or restoring abandoned and unproductive land—and in ways that help stabilize the climate, promote economic development, and reduce poverty.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

Legislation & RegulationPlant & Animal Breeding

Roads forward for European GMO policy—uncertainties in wake of ECJ judgment have to be mitigated by regulatory reform

Wasmer M

Publication date: 05/06/2019

HIDE SUMMARY VIEW ON EXTERNAL SITE

This article gives an overview of legal and procedural uncertainties regarding genome edited organisms and possible ways forward for European GMO policy. After a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ judgment of 25 July 2018, C-528/16), organisms obtained by techniques of genome editing are GMOs and subject to the same obligations as transgenic organisms.

Uncertainties emerge if genome edited organisms cannot be distinguished from organisms bred by conventional techniques, such as crossing or random mutagenesis. In this case, identical organisms can be subject to either GMO law or exempt from regulation because of the use of a technique that cannot be identified. Regulatory agencies might not be able to enforce GMO law for such cases in the long term. As other jurisdictions do not regulate such organisms as GMOs, accidental imports might occur and undermine European GMO regulation.

In the near future, the EU Commission as well as European and national regulatory agencies will decide on how to apply the updated interpretation of the law. In order to mitigate current legal and procedural uncertainties, a first step forward lies in updating all guidance documents to specifically address genome editing specifically address genome editing, including a solution for providing a unique identifier. In part, the authorization procedure for GMO release can be tailored to different types of organisms by making use of existing flexibilities in GMO law.

However, only an amendment to the regulations that govern the process of authorization for GMO release can substantially lower the burden for innovators. In a second step, any way forward has to aim at amending, supplementing or replacing the European GMO Directive (2001/18/EC). The policy options presented in this article presuppose political readiness for reform. This may not be realistic in the current political situation. However, if the problems of current GMO law are just ignored, European competitiveness and research in green biotechnology will suffer.

Resource type: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)