The appeal of more than 1000 scientists to MEPs defends new genetic technologies.
The letter urges MEPs to “reject anti-scientific intimidation” and vote in favor of new genetic technologies. The petition has been signed by 33 Nobel Prize winners and more than 1,000 European scientists.
The letter from Finland has been signed by, among others, a professor of plant breeding at the University of Helsinki Teemu Teeri. In his opinion, GMO legislation should be relaxed for new genetic technologies.
– This is an irrational situation. As a researcher, I can’t understand what’s really wrong here, he says.
Varieties resistant to climate change and fewer pesticides
One example of new technologies is the CRISPR Cas9 gene scissors developed about 10 years ago. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020.
The technique is considered a breakthrough in gene editing. Gene scissors can be used to edit the genome of animals, plants and microorganisms very precisely. Its developers biochemist Emmanuelle Charpentier and microbiologist Jennifer Doudna have also signed the researchers’ petition to the MEPs.
– Some plants that are difficult to breed by traditional means – such as fruit trees, vines and potatoes – use some of the most harmful pesticides in the EU, researchers say According to The Guardian.
According to the undersigned researchers, the use of new genetic technologies in plant breeding can help farmers reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture.
In addition, according to them, it increases food security by developing climate-resistant plant varieties.
Blood pressure-lowering tomato or disease-resistant potato
It is a matter of new genome technologies, where the idea is not to transfer genes to new targets, but to change or delete, for example, the genome already existing in a plant.
– For example, we break a gene, so that it no longer works and we get some kind of effect that way, Teeri says.
The leading expert of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry also supports the release of new gene editing techniques from strict GMO regulation Sanna Viljakainen.
– This would be very important to get through now because of the sustainability and flexibility of the European agricultural and food system. We are quite far behind the rest of the world, he says.
The first gene-edited plant varieties have been approved for the market in the United States and Japan. For example, a soybean variety has been developed in the United States, whose fatty acid composition has been improved to make it healthier, and in Japan, a tomato has been developed, which has more blood pressure-lowering factors than a regular tomato.
Genetically modified soybeans and genetically modified corn are the most well-known GMO-treated vegetables. Most of them are cultivated in the United States. In this case, we are talking about transgenic GMOs, in which case it has been possible to introduce the genome of a plant that is not cross-compatible with this plant in nature.
The EU Commission now proposes to allow genetic technologies that could also occur in nature as a result of mutations and evolution, not all GM technologies and cultivation. With new genome technologies, they can be achieved with human help.
– After the fact, you can’t even know or say if this was born in a laboratory or if this was born in nature, Teeri says.
Therefore, Teeri and many others expected that genetic engineering legislation would not apply to these more subtle genetic techniques. The EU Court decided otherwise five years ago. The Commission’s proposal is now a mitigation of that.
– The idea is that if the product is the same as a traditionally processed product, why should it be regulated differently based on how it was made, Teeri asks.
Opponents would need follow-up
The Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee (ENVI) voted on the matter last week. ENVI voted 47-31 in favor of new genetic technologies in accordance with the Commission’s proposal.
In the environment committee’s vote, the motion was supported by, among others, the Social Democrats and the national party PPE, and opposed by the Greens and the left.
The commission’s proposal would define new types of genetic engineering in a different category than more heavily genetically modified organisms and other GMO legislation.
– This second group would be exempted from practically any kind of supervision and monitoring. However, in accordance with the precautionary principle, it would be good for us to know and classify these products, where they are being used and where they are spreading, says the Green MEP Ville Niinistö.
In Niinistö’s opinion too, it would be good to get the products of a new type of genetic engineering onto the market with a somewhat lighter procedure than traditional genetically modified organisms.
– But this report progressed in the direction that it is practically impossible to monitor where these are being used and where they are spreading in natural environments and ecosystems. It goes so far that I don’t support such legislation either, he says.
The Left also voted against the commission’s proposal Silvia Modigilla is a more critical view.
– In my opinion, all genetically modified varieties should remain within the current requirements and risk assessment. This ensures the health and safety of the environment, as well as the freedom of farmers, other food producers and consumers to choose the products they use, says Modig.
Genetically modified means an organism, for example a plant, whose genes and properties have been modified by genetic engineering methods.
GM foods and feed may not be sold or marketed in the EU unless they have been granted a permit.
GM corn, soy and rapeseed approved in the EU may be imported into the Union territory for use in feed and foodstuffs.
Every food and animal feed containing a genetically modified (gm) substance is clearly labeled.
Currently, there are hardly any genetically modified foods on store shelves in Finland.
Sources: Food Agency, European Commission