Grow More Foundation 25 Health Sciences Drive, Stony Brook NY 11790*Corresponding author email firstname.lastname@example.org
Advancements in crop genomics and molecular biology are enabling us to combat plant pests, disease, environmental stresses as well as enhance nutrition and plant growth.
However, being at the forefront of agricultural biotechnology raises both societal questions and concerns, as well as the need for new regulatory oversight. It is imperative that scientists bridge the gap and enable an open, global dialogue so that all are informed.
Coming at the heels of the EU ruling to regulate genome edited (bioedited) crops in 20181, live births of bioedited human twins were reported in China2.
Harnessing the power of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPER associated protein 9 (Cas9), components of the bacterial immune response3, to permanently alter the human genome thrusted the ethics of CRISPR to the front and center of public discourse.
Scientists and researchers across the globe expressed dismay at the premature application of bioediting in humans, recommending a moratorium on research, pending the development and adoption of clinical guidelines4. Though this was not the first time CRISPR made the headlines5. In 2016, the common white-button mushroom caused public outcry when regulatory bodies approved the non-regulated status for the bioedited non- browning fungi6.
To this end, regulatory bodies in America posted a request for comments, specifically on the safety of bioediting7, and held two public meetings on Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach at the end of 2017. Concerned citizens voiced their fears, linking bioengineered crops with autism and cancer; farmers urged for more public outreach and education; and, non-government organizations (NGOs), such as Grow More Foundation, advocated for an independent, transparent and scientifically sound third-party review8. The heated discussions reflected the common widespread distrust of and misunderstandings about science and biotechnology.
About Grow More Foundation
Grow More is an NGO, 501(c)(3) non-profit established in 2017 comprised of scientists from across the globe developing globally accepted criteria for reviewing bioedited crops9. Their mission is to provide education, promote awareness and encourage transparency of biotechnologies in agriculture. Grow More does not accept funding from seed industry to remain non-conflict of interest and aims to encourage a global dialogue between scientists, society, industry and regulatory. They believe that the science, safety and environmental effects of each application of bioengineering or bioediting, must be independently and transparently evaluated.
This is not the first-time the ethics and safety of modifying an organism’s DNA has been questioned. For over two decades, the creation and consumption of bioengineered crops has been fraught with controversy.
Beginning with the transgenic better-tasting garden tomato in the mid 1990s (Box 2) to the most recent edited soybean with reduced trans fats10, fear, concern and uncertainty have negatively dominated the dialogue.
This attitude is perhaps not surprising, given the contrast in regulatory approval of modified crops for human consumption, with the US and EU representing opposite ends of the regulatory spectrum.
Approval of the CRISPR mushroom in the US set the precedent for non- regulated status of all subsequent CRISPR organisms that do not contain any foreign DNA and were created by precisely targeting and editing the native DNA.
Meanwhile, the EU ruled that CRISPR-mediated genome editing is essentially equivalent conventional bioengineering methods and therefore should be regulated. Therefore, bioedited crops cannot be created, tested or imported within the EU without prior regulatory approval, greatly impacting science, and pushing many scientists to act11,12.
Regulatory bodies in Nigeria recently approved bioengineered Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) resistant cowpea13, in contrast with unsubstantiated claims that farming Bt cotton in Bangladesh correlated with farmer suicide rates14, reducing farmers to illegally growing Bt Brinjal (Richard Roberts, Pers. Comm.).
Bioengineered plantain field trials were recently successful in Uganda15, whereas several years prior, bioengineered rice field trials in the Philippines were destroyed by activists16. Though many EU countries ban the cultivation and import of bioengineered crops for human consumption, importation of bioengineered corn and soy for livestock feed is permitted17.
Everything we eat today has been selectively bred for favourable (genetic) traits and domesticated, and thus, technically, these crops are genetically modified. Bioediting could be viewed as one of many tools or technological advances that can be utilized to help us towards food security.
You say modified, I say edited
The first bioengineered crop on the market was tomato, and thirty years on it may well be the first bioedited crop also. Studies highlight the potential applications of bioediting in tomato fruit ripening18 and added flavour19. There is variation in size, shape and colour of tomatoes, due to domestication and selective breeding that modified ‘natural’ wild tomatoes, giving us ‘natural GMO’ tomatoes. Thanks to advanced breeding practices, we have long-lasting and shelf-stable tomatoes. However, in breeding stronger, bigger tomatoes, flavour was negatively impacted. To overcome this, Flavr Savr20 was created in the 1990s by the US company Calgene. They were committed to an open dialogue with the public to build confidence and reassurance, voluntarily seeking government approval and labeling. Whilst in the EU, the UK company Zeneca bioengineered tomatoes using similar technology and manufactured purees that outsold other tomato-based products in UK supermarkets. However, this was only for a short time. Why is this? The media hysteria caused by the ‘Pusztai affair’21 involving rat feeding studies had lasting negative consequences on the perception and acceptance of biotechnology in the EU22. No bioengineered tomatoes have been commercially available since the 1990s, and yet ‘non-GMO’ labels can be found on tomatoes and tomato-based products in many countries.
Historically, farmers have always incorporated technological advances into their crop and livestock management: from prehistoric ploughs to labour-saving machinery during the Industrial Revolution, and on to the use of pesticides and cross-bred high-yielding crops during the Green Revolution of the late twentieth century23.
Since these advances, farming has become far removed from our everyday lives, with children being unable to identify and fearful of fresh produce that their processed food was derived from. Most people are unaware of the issues faced by growers and the role of breeders in agriculture.
As regulatory bodies around the world debate the regulation of bioedited fungi, plants, animals and humans, the dialogue is further clouded due to the lack of standardization.
Bioengineered crops are produced by the transfer of genetic material from an unrelated species (transgenic), or related (cisgenic), and are commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Marketing initiatives dictate the binary concept of GMO or non-GMO, providing an attractive simplified statement for consumers. Such categorization inaccurately portrays that there are many more bioengineered crops commercially available than in reality.
Furthermore, inorganic products (as opposed to organic, i.e., alive, not to be confused with the alternate definition of grown with ‘natural chemicals’) lack DNA to be bioengineered in the first place, e.g., Himalayan salt and water.
This misleading labelling does not enable consumers to make better decisions, but instead plays on their fears at their own expense, literally.
Exploitation of GMOs further detaches society from the science, impacting stakeholders and policymakers. Alike biotechnology, labelling should adhere to ethical standards, and the misuse should be prevented by law24. At the end of 2018, American regulatory agencies announced the ruling for the mandatory labelling of bioengineered foods by 202025.
Yet, this ruling does not cover foods derived from bioedited crops. Unsurprisingly, consumer advocacy groups raised concerns that not labelling would be just as misleading as labelling water non- GMO, or add greater meaning to the alternative of non-GMO. Standardized food labelling would prevent such fear-based marketing and enable all to make informed choices.
So, why is bioengineering so controversial? The difference that sets biotechnology apart from other accepted methods for developing crops and animals is that it provides much greater control and precision of the genetic changes introduced. This stands in stark contrast to other accepted traditional bioengineering techniques to randomly create genetic changes, used in the first generation of bioengineered crops, namely radiation and chemical mutagenesis.
Science evolves quickly, and it is not surprising that when feeling left behind by advances, laypersons turn to sources that are easily digestible, often ignoring the credibility of the citations or the conflicts of interest, and too often conclude that correlation equates with causation.
Thus, “carcinogens mutate our DNA and cause cancer” becomes “genetic modification of our food causes cancer”. Even the discredited and retracted study on the association of herbicide- resistant corn and cancer in rats26 continues to be referenced and disseminated by GMO opponents as scientific proof of the alleged carcinogenic properties of GMOs.
With such established fear and distrust of the most commonly cited and controversial application of bioengineering, i.e., herbicide tolerance, how can we enable a new narrative?
Most can agree on the need to achieve food security, safety and sustainability. We can also agree that there will be insufficient arable land and fresh water to feed the growing world’s population. And, that unpredictable weather changes will directly impact and impede harvest.
Bioengineering has already saved papaya from viral infection, biofortified rice and plantain, and holds the potential to save cocoa from fungal infection, cassava from viral disease, maize from Fall armyworm, and coffee from climate change.
Science is about truth, and truth without transparency is meaningless. Without understanding the empiricism and scientific rigour of peer-review, as well as the testing of the scientific process, misinformation will continue to flourish, sow discord, and breed fear.
Only if everyone is accurately informed, a formulated coherent, inclusive and productive dialogue can ensue. And, considering that public funding is a major contributor to research, scientists owe it to society to communicate widely. Just as Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) conference talks27 are viewed by millions and voluntarily translated into more than a hundred languages, qualified experts could lead such communications efforts.
Regardless of stance, it is crucial for scientists, farmers, regulatory bodies, stakeholders, manufacturers, and most importantly consumers, from developed as well as developing countries, to come to the same table and put personal beliefs aside to devise a global and substantive policy on the creation and consumption of bioedited foods.
Terms that are used to describe molecular methods and application to agriculture are briefly explained.
Bioedited Term covering a wide range of molecular methods that are newer and more precisely modify the genome of an organism, such as CRISPR/Cas9 biotechnology (see definition below); and is used interchangeably with genome edited.
Bioengineered Alternative term for genetically engineered or genetically modified; a bioengineered organism contains DNA that was inserted into its genome that originates from a different organism. The DNA encoding the trait could come from the same species or a completely different one; for example, a gene from a bacterial species was introduced into soybeans, corn, and several other crops to make them more resistant to insect attacks.
Cas9 Bacterial protein that is guided to its target by a short sequence that matches and then cuts DNA and originated as a component of bacterial immune systems.
Cisgenic Type of bioengineering modification where the genetic trait introduced into the organism was from the same or a closely related species or wild relative. In theory the trait could also have been introduced into the organism via conventional crop development methods such as breeding.
CRISPR Technology derived from clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR). This acronym originally referred to one aspect of the bacterial immune response to viruses, specifically, the component in the bacterial genome that contains small fragments of viral DNA. These fragments serve as guides for the Cas9 enzyme to identify invading viral DNA in order to cleave it and stop the virus from replicating in the cell. Currently, CRISPR and/or CRISPR/Cas9 is used as a general term to refer to the technique or method of bioengineering that forces this system to modify a wide variety of organisms.
GMO Abbreviation of genetically modified organism; a general term referring to any bioengineered organism.
Transgenic Type of bioengineering modification where the DNA modification introduced into a species originated from a different species that is not sexually compatible with the recipient organism. Bioengineered soybeans that are resistant to glyphosate are an example of a transgenic plant crop.
1. Judgement in Case C-528/16 Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre and Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forê. Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 111/18 Luxembourg, 25, July2018.
2. Regalado A. Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies. MIT Technology Review. 25, November 2018.
3. Ishino Y, Shinagawa H, Makino K, Amemura M, Nakata A. 1987. Nucleotide sequence of the iap gene, responsible for alkaline phosphatase isozyme conversion in Escherichia coli, and identification of the gene product. J Bacteriol 169:5429–5433. doi:10.1128/jb.169.12.5429-5433.1987.
4. Eric S. Lander, Françoise Baylis, Feng Zhang, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Paul Berg, Catherine Bourgain, Bärbel Friedrich, J. Keith Joung, Jinsong Li, David Liu, Luigi Naldini, Jing-Bao Nie, Renzong Qiu, Bettina Schoene-Seifert, Feng Shao, Sharon Terry, Wensheng Wei & Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker. Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature 567, 165-168 (2019) doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-00726-5.
5. Waltz E. Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation. Nature. 2016 21 Apr;532(7599):293. doi: 10.1038/ nature.2016.19754. PubMed PMID: 27111611.
6. Yang Y. Confirmation that transgene-free, CRISPR-edited mushroom is not a regulated article College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University. APHIS USDA 30 Oct, 2015. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/ reg_loi/15-321-01_air_inquiry.pdf
7. Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach Initiative; Public Meetings; Request for Comments A Notice by the Food and Drug administration on 13 Oct 2017.
8. Public Meeting on Agricultural Biotechnology Education and Outreach, 7 November, 2017. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/NewsEvents/ WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/UCM586757.pdf
10. Demorest ZL, Coffman A, Baltes NJ, Stoddard TJ, Clasen BM, Luo S, Retterath A, Yabandith A, Gamo ME, Bissen J, Mathis L, Voytas DF, Zhang F. Direct stacking of sequence-specific nuclease-induced mutations to produce high oleic and low linolenic soybean oil. BMC Plant Biol. 2016 Oct 13;16(1):225. PubMed PMID: 27733139; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5062912.
11. Urnov FD, Ronald PC, Carroll D. A call for science-based review of the European court'sdecision on gene-edited crops. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Sep 6;36(9):800-802. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4252. PubMed PMID: 30188544.
12. Expert reaction to Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that GMO rules should cover plant genome editing techniques. Science Media Centre. 2016. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-court-of- justice-of-the-european-union-ruling-that-gmo-rules-should-cover- plant-genome-editing-techniques/
13. Decision Document for a permit for the Commercial release of Pod Borer - Resistant Cowpea (PBR – Cowpea)-event AAT709A, genetically modified for lepidopteran insect pest (Maruca vitrata) resistance, issued to Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), Zaria.
14. Thomas G, De Tavernier J. Farmer-suicide in India: debating the role of biotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Dec;13(1):8. doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0052-z. Epub 2017 May 11. PubMed PMID: 28497354; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5427059.
15. Paul JY, Khanna H, Kleidon J, Hoang P, Geijskes J, Daniells J, Zaplin E, Rosenberg Y, James A, Mlalazi B, Deo P, Arinaitwe G, Namanya P, Becker D, Tindamanyire J, Tushemereirwe W, Harding R, Dale J. Golden bananas in the field: Elevated fruit pro-vitamin A from the expression of a single banana transgene. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Apr;15(4):520-532. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12650. Epub 2016 Dec 20. PubMed PMID: 27734628; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5362681.
16. Slezack, M. Militant Filipino farmers destroy Golden Rice GM crop. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24021-militant-filipino- farmers-destroy-golden-rice-gm-crop/
17. European Food Safety Authority. Outcome of the European Member States and Public consultations on the draft guidance for the risk assessment of the presence at low level of genetically modified plant material in imported food and feed under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. 20 November 2017 doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1329.
18. Grierson D. Identifying and silencing tomato ripening genes with antisense genes. Plant Biotechnol J. 2016 Mar;14(3):835-8. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12463.
19. Wang D, Samsulrizal N, Yan C, Allcock NS, Craigon J, Blanco- Ulate B,Ortega-Salazar I, Marcus SE, Bagheri HM, Perez-Fons L, Fraser PD, Foster T, Fray RG, Knox JP, Seymour GB. Characterisation of CRISPR mutants targeting genes modulating pectin degradation in ripening tomato. Plant Physiol. 2018 Nov 20. pii: pp.01187.2018. doi: 10.1104/pp.18.01187.
20. Bruening G, Lyons JM. The case of the flavr savr tomato. California Agriculture, 2000 July. Volume 54, number 4.
21. Ewen SW, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet. 1999 Oct 16;354(9187):1353-4.
22. Burke, D GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? EMBO Rep. 2004 May; 5(5): 432–436. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400160 PMCID: PMC1299063.
23. Pingali PL. Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 31;109(31):12302-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912953109. Epub 2012 23 Jul. Review. PubMed PMID: 22826253; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3411969.
24. Giddings LV, Atkinson RD. Statement Of Grounds: The Non-Gmo Project Butterfly Logo Wrongly Stigmatizes So-Called "Gmos" And In So Doing Misleads Consumers. Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. September 2018. http://www2.itif.org/2018-non-gmo-citizen-petition.pdf?_ga=2.171268770.383825373.1539098058-1623633589.1539098058
25. 7 CFR Part 66 [Doc. No. AMS–TM–17–0050] RIN 0581–AD54 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. 65814 Federal Register/Vol. 83, No. 245/21 December 2018/Rules and Regulations https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/ national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard
26. Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D. de Vendômois JS. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31. doi:10.1016/ j.fct.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Sep 19. Retraction in: Food Chem Toxicol.2014 Jan;63:244. PubMed PMID: 22999595.
27. TED Conferences LLC. TED: Ideas worth spreading. https:// www.ted.com/
The authors thank Denis Murphy for his feedback and contributions to this article. No competing interests declared.Download pdf