Varieties requiring less pesticides, seeds that are more durable, more productive or more resistant to drought and disease, wheat low in gluten… Here are the promises of “NGT”, the “new genomic technologies”, in the agricultural sector. The European Commission proposed, Wednesday, July 5, to relax its legislation to encourage its development. “New GMOs at risk” for their detractors, “biotechnologies of the future” for their defenders… L’Express takes stock of “NGT” (or “NBT” in English).
Are NGTs “new GMOs”?
GMOs are organisms that have been genetically modified in the laboratory to give them new characteristics. There are several types of artificial genetic modifications, but those that create the most debate are the so-called “transgenic” modifications. Transgenesis is a transfer of a gene from a first organism to a second from another species, in the laboratory and without sexual reproduction. Transgenic GMOs sometimes raise concerns about their ethical ramifications and their potential impact on consumer health and biodiversity.
NGTs are based on an innovative tool: “molecular scissors”, a technology called CRISPR-Cas9. They allow very precise genetic modifications, without necessarily introducing genetic material from outside the basic organism.
NGT are therefore GMOs, but are not transgenic. The genetic modifications of these NGTs are rather what is called “cisgenesis”, the act of artificially transferring genes between organisms of the same species. These NGTs also exploit certain targeted processes of “mutagenesis”. This time, rather than adding an external gene, it is a question of mutating the organism genetically by exposing it to energetic or chemical agents, such as X-rays.
What are the rules that currently govern NGTs in Europe?
NGTs have been considered in the eyes of European law like other GMOs since a 2018 decision. Due to their recent scientific development and their artificiality, all genetically modified organisms are currently subject to strict legislation. The limits of use are defined by three texts: the main directive of 2001 and two regulations.
Currently, a GMO cannot be placed on the market or disseminated in the environment without an authorization which is delivered in the event of absence of risks for health and the environment. GMOs authorized for sale are also subject to monitoring, traceability and labeling according to these regulations.
In March 2021, a series of documents entitled “Crispr Files” (in reference to “molecular scissors”) was published by the NGO Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). It already revealed the significant lobbying of agronomy giants and biotechnology researchers within the European Commission on the deregulation of the famous NGT.
What changes could happen in their regulations?
The European Commission opened the way on Wednesday July 5 to a relaxation of the framework for “new genomic technologies”. Brussels would thus propose to create two distinct categories of NGT. The first would include “complex” mutations impossible to produce without artificial intervention, and would remain under the current GMO regulations – that is to say a framework. The second would contain mutations replicated by genetic modification but possible to obtain naturally or by hybridization/traditional agricultural selection. This second category would be subject to significant deregulation: no more risk assessments or prior authorization, and no traceability. The products of the second category would therefore be treated as conventional seeds.
These deregulated “single mutation” NGTs would only be registered in a public database, with the obligation of specific labeling only for seeds. The only safeguard proposed by the European Commission in the leak of their working version: no NGT could be labeled “organic”. All the proposals surrounding this potential relaxation will have to be discussed by the Member States.
Nearly a hundred applications for authorization for NGT crops at the research stage (banana without brown spots, less bitter mustard seeds, etc.) have already been submitted, as well as a few for field tests (maize in Belgium, potatoes in Sweden, etc.).
“For” and “against”, what arguments?
The agrochemical giants have so far had to finance the European regulatory procedures for the approval of all their GMO seeds indiscriminately. For the supporters of these genomic modifications, reducing the legal and financial obstacles to the development of NGTs with “reduced mutations” would allow an acceleration of research in this field, and the democratization of these “less risk” technologies in the EU.
According to their defenders, the “new GMOs” would be allies of the ecological transition, of the fight against the world food crises and against the impact of climate change. Genome modification is seen by some researchers as a concrete way to make plants more resistant to water stress (to cope with more frequent droughts), more productive in the same space or even tougher against diseases. Seeds from naturally “pest-killing” NGT would also reduce the use of polluting chemical counterparts – a step towards the European goal of using half as many pesticides by 2030.
The Comité Éthique en Commun, an advisory body on ethical issues, had already issued in a 2018 report a positive conclusion on the compatibility of NGT with agroecology, if they “can make it possible to achieve [ses] main goals […]for example to increase biodiversity, reduce the amount of inputs and suppress resistance to herbicides”.
However, for some environmental NGOs, the “complexity” of the mutation placed as a criterion by the European Commission is not a reliable indicator of the potential impact of a seed derived from NGT in nature. Indeed, even mutations obtained by traditional agricultural selection can be deleterious for biodiversity. “Circumventions” can thus appear, for example the appearance of a new, more virulent parasite in the absence of a first neutralized by the plant thanks to a mutation.
Another concern crystallizes around what English speakers call “Super Crops”, ultra-resilient “super varieties”, from NGT, which could in the long term crush cultivated plant diversity and standardize agricultural landscapes. Mute Schimpf, coordinator and activist for the NGO Friends of the Earth, told AFP that genome editing cannot, according to him, replace crop diversification by “locally adapting varieties”.
“The release of new GMOs will further impoverish agricultural biodiversity and soil health, essential for guaranteeing food security, by encouraging monocultures and genetic uniformity”, abounded with the press agency Francesco Sottile, agricultural researcher.
Other researchers have expressed concern about the impossibility of tracing the origin of a seed (natural or artificial) without the obligation of traceability. Thus, for two neighboring fields, pollination could take place in an uncontrolled manner between a GMO seed and an “organic” seed, without being able to follow the fertilizations and potential multiplications of the genetic modification. In addition, the lack of labeling on marketed foods from NGT plants “would deprive consumers of knowing the contents of their plate”, denounced on Twitter Slow Food, an association for food and biodiversity.
Finally, in terms of ethics, the patenting of these “new GMOs” from NGT as private industrial objects would increase the dependence of growers on seed companies (companies that produce and sell seeds to growers). However, the European Commission has promised to assess intellectual property issues later.
The Commission’s proposals will now be examined by the Member States. A consensus could be found between the 27 before the end of the year, but the passage of this deregulation project in the European Parliament announces heated debates between detractors and defenders of the project.