Few topics are as divisive and controversial as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The same level of contention also characterises new genomic techniques (NGTS), often referred to as the new generation of GMOs.
As explored in the last episode of Euronews Tech Talks, NGTs are cutting-edge technologies used to alter the genetic material of plants by editing their DNA.
Currently, in the European Union, crops developed using NGTs are regulated under the same framework as GMOs. However, this situation might soon change.
In 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal to ease restrictions over gene editing techniques, making producing and commercialising NGT-derived crops simpler.
This proposal is still under discussion and has the support of several scientists.
However, the deregulation of NGTs also raised concerns among other experts and non-governmental organisations like Friends of the Earth Europe.
To better understand the reasons for and against the deregulation of NGTs, Euronews Tech Talks spoke with two experts from different sides of the debate: Michael Antoniou, Professor of molecular genetics and toxicology at King’s College London; and Nathalie Verbruggen, Professor of plant physiology and molecular genetics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Is the proposed distinction between two types of new genomic techniques scientifically justified?
Under the new EU proposal, NGTS would be split into two categories: NGT 1 and NGT 2. Crops classified as NGT 2 would remain subject to the GMO regulation, while those labelled as NGT 1 would be exempt from strict risk assessment and labelling requirements.
This distinction would depend on the number of genetic modifications introduced into an organism, a criterion that, according to both professors, is inconsistent.
“This distinction is considered completely artificial, which is true because nature does not draw neat lines,” Verbruggen explained. “NGT 1 makes no sense to me at all because when you look at the criteria, it’s a free-for-all,” Antoniou said.
Although the two experts agree that the division between NGT 1 and NGT 2 lacks scientific grounding, their reactions diverge.
Verbruggen would like to have more plants under the category NGT 1, to have greater deregulation.
“We (scientists) don’t see it as a risk, but as a missed opportunity,” she said.
Conversely, Antoniou is concerned about the high number of NGT crops that would already be in the category NGT 1.
“There is no way you can bring about 20 large-scale changes in the DNA of the organism and that this could occur naturally,” he explained.
Could the deregulation of NGTS solve climate change and make our food system more secure?
Antoniou and Verbruggen also have different perspectives on the impact of the EU proposal on climate change and the entire food system.
Verbruggen embraces a balanced but optimistic position.
“Like most technologies, the impact is not inherently good or bad; it will depend on the use [of the NGTs],” she said.
However, the Brussels-based expert sees a strong potential in this tool.
“If the uses are guided by sustainability goals, NGTs can become powerful tools to support agriculture and biodiversity,” she told Euronews.
According to Verbruggen, the strength of these new techniques lies in their ability to make precise genetic modifications, accelerating processes similar to natural breeding.
“We talk about reducing fertilisers by making crops less dependent on nitrogen or phosphorus and making them more resilient to diseases and pests,” she stated.
Conversely, Antoniou is sceptical about the promises of NGTs.
“The types of characteristics that we would like our plants or animals to have in the face of climate change… are what are known as genetically complex traits,” the professor explained.
“It’s not like one gene or two genes give you robust drought tolerance or saline tolerance or heat stress tolerance,” he said.
According to Antoniou, the problem does not lie within the crops, but with the agricultural system itself.
“What we need are climate-ready systems of agriculture, not climate-ready crops or animals,” he told Euronews.
Antoniou stressed that gene-editing tools can be less precise than believed, potentially leading to unpredictable effects on the environment.
Why could patenting be a problem?
One problem that Antoniou and Verbruggen are on the same page about is patenting.
Under the new regulation, NGT-made crops would be subject to patenting, something both experts believe could have a detrimental effect on the balance of power in the EU economic system.
“Farmers are going to suffer more because they will pay more for their seeds, they will be restricted on how they use and how they grow them,” Antoniou explained.
“This [the patenting of NGTs] can favour large biotech companies. And I think one of the spirits of this new regulation is to enlarge the access to new partners, smaller industries, public industries, and universities, so this could jeopardise this opening,” Verbruggen said.
