Scientists explain that gene editing isn’t precise and gene-edited plants are not ‘natural-like’

Writing in Le Monde, a group of scientists have expressed deep concern over the EU proposal to deregulate new GMOs, which they say is based not on science but “an illusion”, as well as “a radical form of biological reductionism” that is “contradicted by the entirety of contemporary biology”. They also warn that it risks opening up EU markets to a slew of patented seeds, which they describe as a threat to European seed sovereignty. There follows a summary of this important article in English, based on a Deepl translation. 
___

The 2018 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union had set it in legal stone: products derived from new genomic techniques (NGTs) are indeed genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and should be regulated as GMOs. That's because these tools, most of which were developed after the adoption of the 2001 Directive [the foundational European Union legislation regulating the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment], lack the historical track record needed to demonstrate safety. Yet since then, the European debate has become trapped in a narrative that is appealing but scientifically questionable: that of a technology so precise that it merely imitates nature, albeit at an accelerated pace.

By proposing to drastically deregulate these organisms – exempting some from assessment, traceability and labelling – the European Commission is doing more than simply streamlining administrative procedures. It is on the verge of endorsing a major biological fallacy. This irrational deregulation flouts the precautionary principle.

The key argument put forward by those advocating this regulatory leap is based on a mechanical analogy: the CRISPR-Cas9 technique and similar gene editing tools are said to be a pair of ‘molecular scissors’ capable of modifying the plant genome with pinpoint accuracy. But biology is not word processing. Genetic intervention, even when targeted, frequently causes – amongst other things – ‘off-target’ effects or unexpected rearrangements within the targeted sequence itself (‘on-target’).

In reality, the process of transformation in the laboratory is extremely violent. The plants we end up growing are the survivors of profound cellular stress, bearing transmissible genetic and epigenetic scars. To claim that these upheavals are identical to those of natural evolution is a simplification that ignores the nature of the errors induced.

At a time when we are sequencing millions of whole genomes to understand their complexity, failing to require a full analysis of modified sequences represents a safety failure. Understanding the code is only the first step, but it is essential.

To justify this unchecked deregulation, the Commission relies on a sanitised narrative: that of a pseudo-continuity between millennia-old plant breeding and genome editing. According to this narrative, humans have merely switched tools, moving from patient selection to molecular lasers. But this continuity is an illusion. Whereas conventional breeding works with the whole plant and its complex network of regulatory mechanisms, NGTs force their way into the cell nucleus using intrusive methods.

A European contradiction

It is on this fragile foundation that the creation of the NGT1 category rests, grouping together plants considered equivalent to conventional varieties based on an arbitrary threshold of fewer than 20 genetic modifications. From a scientific point of view, this approach is misguided. It is not the number of modifications that are important, but their nature and function. A single modification to a key gene can radically transform a plant’s interaction with its ecosystem or alter its nutrient content. This legislative reform endorses a radical form of biological reductionism: it treats living organisms as an assembly of interchangeable building blocks, a view that is, however, contradicted by the entirety of contemporary biology.

A plant does not evolve in a test tube. If a modification subtly alters the flowering period or the chemical defence signals, what impact will this have on pollinators or on soil life? Deregulating GMOs without requiring in-depth environmental impact assessments is tantamount to conducting an open-air experiment on a global scale, with no possibility of containment.

Furthermore, the argument that these new GMOs are essential for ‘feeding the world’ is a tired old excuse. Hunger is not caused by a lack of productivity – we are in a situation of global overproduction – but by conflicts, waste and a lack of purchasing power due to poverty. Historically, high-tech seeds have mainly increased farmers’ dependence on multinational corporations. NGTs risk exacerbating this precarious situation by imposing an intellectual property model that is completely ill-suited to the challenges in these regions.

Here we touch on the crux of the European contradiction. On the one hand, we are told that these plants are so close to nature that they require no assessment, labelling or post-market monitoring. On the other hand, these very same varieties are the subject of widespread patenting as ‘disruptive biotechnological inventions’.

You can’t have it both ways: if a plant is the result of a human invention innovative enough to be patented, it is by definition different from a natural variety and must be assessed as such. This legal confusion threatens European seed sovereignty, as Europe is a net exporter of GMO-free seeds. By allowing untracked NGT plants to spread – as the viable pollen of certain species can travel for miles – farmers are exposed to the risk of being accused of unintentional infringement if patented genes end up in their fields through cross-pollination.

Science is at its greatest when it acknowledges its own limitations. By seeking to force the adoption of new technologies through arbitrary deregulation, the Commission is undermining public confidence. Administrative frameworks stifle the independence of expert judgement by subordinating scientific rigour to bureaucratic and political imperatives. Life is the foundation of our shared survival; it deserves better than a regulatory change hastily negotiated to satisfy certain lobbies. It is time for Europe to choose innovation that protects, rather than deregulation that blinds.

The authors: Yves Bertheau, Honorary Research Director at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment and Honorary Researcher at the Centre for Ecology and Conservation Sciences (National Museum of Natural History, CNRS, Sorbonne University); Tatiana Giraud, CNRS Research Director, Paris-Saclay University, Member of the French Academy of Sciences; Isabelle Goldringer, population geneticist, INRAE Research Director; Pierre-Henri Gouyon, Professor Emeritus at the National Museum of Natural History; Jane Lecomte, ecologist and Professor at the National Museum of Natural History.

It's worth considering subscribing to Le Monde in English, as they publish critical articles that would seldom see the light of day in mainstream English language publications.

Image: Shutterstock (licensed purchase)