Move comes as EU institutions are attempting to weaken regulations around new GMOs. Report: Claire Robinson

The EU has allocated a total of €11m to two research projects on detection methods for new GMOs (products of “new genomic techniques” or NGTs). The move comes after a longstanding refusal by the European Commission to fund such research and at a time when the EU institutions are engaged in a deregulation process to weaken the safeguards around new GMOs.

The first project, DARWIN, is led by NORCE (Norwegian Research Centre) and has received funding of €5m. The Non-GMO industry association VLOG is also involved. NORCE already has an ongoing project, FOODPRINT, funded by the Norwegian Research Council, which is focusing on the detection of gene-edited products in the context of traceability and labelling of genetically modified (GM) products throughout the food chain. That project will be completed at the end of 2024.

The second project, DETECTIVE, is led by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and has received funding of €6m. Also involved are the GMO industry lobby group Euroseeds, along with various organisations with a history of GMO industry-friendly views and activities, such as the EU Joint Research Centre and Wageningen University.

It will be interesting to see if the two projects come to similar or different conclusions regarding the feasibility of detecting new GMOs. GMWatch does not necessarily assume that the seemingly more industry-friendly DETECTIVE project will conclude that new GM plants can't be distinguished from natural plants, in spite of the industry's use of this narrative in the past.

However, the language that the DETECTIVE grant recipients use to describe their project does not inspire complete confidence. They state upfront that “technical detection may be limited”, though their aim also to investigate “non-technical approaches to traceability and authenticity to develop comprehensive solutions” is both welcome and sensible. They mention that they will set up a “Stakeholder Advisory Board” to “enable an improved understanding and awareness of the challenges related to traceability, authenticity and transparency of NGT-derived products”.

This begs the question of which “stakeholders” will be invited onto the board (will they include consumers and the organic and non-GMO industry sectors?) and whether the DETECTIVE team is unduly emphasising the “challenges” relating to detection. Given their wording, we might even wonder if they care whether they deliver effective detection methods or not.  

In contrast, the DARWIN project uses more positive and less ambiguous language, saying it “will bring a cutting-edge approach developing genetic fingerprints using artificial intelligence to overcome challenges related to event-specific targeted methods, unambiguously identifying specific NGT lines”. Like DETECTIVE, DARWIN will also pursue non-lab methods of traceability: “DARWIN also brings innovation in the new application of digital solutions such as data spaces and documentation-based screening to increase the data evidence to NGTs; blockchains to enable transparent and traceable detection along the food chain; AI models; and a Decision Support System to improve accuracy and support the selection of the best fit for purpose detection methods.”

Most promisingly, the DARWIN team envisages “an interdisciplinary co-creation ecosystem based on Responsible Research and innovation (RRI) principals, empowering a wide variety of stakeholders – including consumers – in Europe and internationally”.

Imbalance of power in new GMO deregulation proposal

There is no doubt that it is squarely within the interests of GMO industry patent owners to be able to detect their own GMOs – and distinguish them from naturally bred plants – in order to enforce their patents in case someone "steals" their patented gene sequences. GMO industry patent owners undoubtedly already possess detection methods for their patented new GMOs in-house.

However, a cynic might conclude that it is also within the interest of GMO developers to withhold their detection methods from the public domain. That way, the GMO developer can accuse others of stealing their patented genes while preventing the accused from denying the allegations by using a publicly available detection method.

Cynicism apart, this imbalance of power is precisely what the EU Parliament has voted for in the "new GMO" deregulation process, in failing to demand that the GMO developer provides a publicly available detection method for each new GMO. Currently the applicant for approval for a GMO must provide a detection method to the regulatory authorities, but in the rush to deregulate new GMOs, politicians have unaccountably failed to demand that this existing requirement continue for all these novel products. There is, however, still time to change the new legislative proposal to include such a demand.

Detection methods must be made publicly available

How will the new research projects play into the issue of the availability of new GMO detection methods? Molecular geneticist Prof Michael Antoniou commented, “Without seeing the conditions of the grant applications, it’s difficult to reach firm conclusions. But normally, as part of a grant application, the applicant must provide routes to commercialisation of products arising from their research – in this case, the NGT product detection methods.

“I hope that in these cases, the usual routes to commercialisation will be followed, including out-licensing of the technology to testing companies and EU public detection/enforcement laboratories. Provided the licensees are willing to offer testing to the general public as well as industry sectors, a good public service could result, allowing appropriate labelling and preserving consumer choice.”

GMWatch notes that to date, many companies offering GMO detection testing have refused to serve members of the public (including farmers and consumers) or NGOs. This must change and testing must be publicly available.

GMO developers should provide genetic information and reference materials

In a separate initiative to the two new research projects, the German state of Bavaria funded detection work by German authorities on several new GM plants – Corteva's waxy maize, Sanatech's tomato, Calyxt's Calyno soybeans, and Cibus's ODM canola, with some promising early results that could be built on. The authors concluded that “it may be feasible to develop detection methods… using current and new approaches”.

They added, “The prerequisite for development of detection methods for NGT plants… are precise knowledge of the origin and nature of the event (especially molecular data of the sequence modifications and [their] context) and appropriate reference material” – such as seeds or other plant material.

As the authors pointed out, these requirements have already been made clear by the European Network of GMO Laboratories for older-style GMOs a decade ago. Under the existing GMO regulations, applicants for GMO approvals must supply reference materials as well as the detection method, though according to EU institutions, the quality of the reference materials has in some cases been poor. The authors added that precise knowledge of the GM event and the reference materials are “even more essential for the direct detection of NGT products” due to the (potential) absence of foreign DNA sequences.

However, the current deregulation proposals fail to require that these are supplied for all new GMOs.

The refusal of the EU Council and Parliament to require such basic information and materials from the developer in the deregulation proposals has led to a situation in which locating and identifying new GMOs in our fields and on our dinner plates will be far more difficult than it needs to be. It will also significantly hamper the work of the researchers on the two new EU projects.