These new genome-modified plants, which have the approval of the European Commission, could revolutionize agriculture and radically change the content of our food.
New genomic techniques, or “NGT”. This barbaric name is that of a promising, but controversial new agricultural technology. It could revolutionize agriculture in the coming years but also and above all what is on our plates. These techniques make it possible to modify the genome of plants to make them more resistant to drought, diseases and pesticides and therefore increase yields. These plants could also be used to improve the nutritional quality of foods, by enriching them with vitamins or minerals.
If they seem to be a solution for the future of agricultural production, these NGTs are for the moment subject to the obligations of the regulations relating to GMOs, genetically modified organisms much better known to the general public, according to a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. What should change: the European Commission recently proposed to relax the rules for marketing NGT products after the publication of a study favorable. A bill which will be submitted to the European Parliament.
Concretely, NGT consists of “editing” the genetic material of plants to modify it, but without introducing a gene from a different species. In fact, they do not require the use of DNA from another species, which differentiates them from traditional GMOs. This is the meaning of the position of the European Commission, which wants to legally establish this differentiation and classify certain plants from NGT in another category.
- Category 1 would concern products resulting from NGT, presenting modifications which could have occurred naturally or via traditional crossings. Subject to a limited number of mutations (no more than 20 genetic changes), they would be considered “equivalent” to conventional products. Registration in a public database is planned, with a simple labeling obligation. But be careful: this will not be very specific and will only concern seeds. Enough to make NGTs invisible to the end consumer?
- Category 2 would include all other NGT varieties deemed “not equivalent to conventional”. The latter would then remain subject to strict rules governing GMOs.
Certain voices – Greenpeace, Slow Food, Friends of the Earth, environmentalist and left-wing MEPs, or even Ifoam (federation of organic agriculture) – have obviously reacted, accusing the NGT of paving the way for disguised GMOs.
Associations that oppose NGTs fear that they are not sufficiently safe for human health and the environment. They are also concerned that NGT could be used to create inedible or even toxic plants. Others point to illusory promises, the proof of the NGT having not yet been made…
If the European Commission proposes to market NGT more easily it is because these techniques are considered less dangerous than traditional GMOs. But the associations are calling for more control. As for science, it does not offer an answer since no consensus yet exists on these agricultural techniques.