Professor Michael Antoniou is interviewed by Kelly Sokou
This article first appeared in the Greek publication OW. It is re-published here, as a Deepl translation into English, with the kind permission of the author, Kelly Sokou.
The first part of the OW article sets out – via a series of questions – to explain the background to the controversy around the current EU proposals on deregulating new GMOs. The second part is OW’s interview with Professor Michael Antoniou, following a public event in Athens – Our Food at Risk: The Hidden Promotion of GMOs – at which Professor Antoniou was a keynote speaker.
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
While we are preoccupied with current events in Greece and around the world, Europe is preparing to say “yes” to new genetically modified crops, under the pretext of tackling climate change and an impending food crisis.
How do they differ from the familiar GM crops, against which Greece had erected a barrier at the beginning of the millennium? What methods will be used to produce them, and what effects might they have on our health?
Professor of Molecular Genetics Michael Antoniou, a guest [in Greece] of Greenpeace, explains from his own scientific perspective why the new bill should not be passed.
It may not be widely known, but the resolution and the broader legislative initiative concerning the Regulation on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) are currently at the centre of discussions within the European Union. What does this mean in practice? In simple terms: genetically modified plants on our plates.
You might ask: But wasn’t the issue of GMOs settled? How did we end up here again?
The truth is that in 2000, Greece “erected a wall” against the cultivation of GMOs on its soil, thanks to the immediate reaction of society and the government. Although GMOs cross the border daily in the form of imported animal feed to sustain the country’s livestock industry, the issue resurfaced this year, as GMOs took on a new form and became “new GMOs”.
If you think this issue doesn’t concern you, unfortunately you’re wrong. In public discourse, “new genetically modified organisms” (or next-generation GMOs) refer to plants that have been genetically modified using new genomic techniques, without the addition of foreign DNA from other species. What’s different now? This is exactly where the story begins. A case that seems to be deliberately hushed up and that we’d like to present to you in detail.
What are the “new GMOs” that the EU is introducing to us?
From both a scientific and legal standpoint, the EU is now attempting to distinguish these new plants from older genetically modified organisms. Very recently, the EU Council adopted the framework, and final approval is now expected, which will be completed in June. The new regulation classifies plants derived from NGTs into two main categories:
Category 1. This category applies to plants that have undergone limited, targeted modifications (up to 20 genetic changes) that “could also occur naturally or through traditional breeding methods,” as the claim states. These plants will now be treated the same as conventional ones. They will be exempt from the strict controls, time-consuming licensing procedures, and mandatory labelling on supermarket shelves that apply to “traditional” GMOs. They are not permitted to be herbicide-resistant, and they remain banned for organic farming. The seeds will be labeled so that farmers know what they are buying.
Category 2. This category covers plants with more complex genetic modifications that, while resulting from new techniques, will continue to be subject to existing, strict GMO legislation (mandatory risk assessments, traceability, and strict on-shelf labelling for consumers).
What are the potential problems?
The European Commission’s proposal on New Genomic Techniques, i.e., new genetically modified foods, includes the removal of the safety and transparency rules currently in place for the cultivation and marketing of these plants. As a result, our food will contain hidden genetically modified ingredients that will not be labelled, will not have undergone safety assessments, and will not have been tested.
As a result, consumers will not know what they are eating, farmers will face risks because these plants will be patented, and due to a lack of transparency, scientists will not be able to monitor the effects of the new GMOs on humans and ecosystems.
With these points in mind, the Greek office of Greenpeace and the SITO and Aegilops Networks invited us to an informational event ahead of the final vote on the legislative changes regarding new genetically modified plants in the European Parliament.
“New GMOs”: What are the arguments in their favour?
A broad coalition of food industry organisations, scientists, and farmers is pushing for the immediate adoption of the regulation. Their main arguments are that the EU needs these technologies to remain globally competitive by creating crops that are more resilient to climate change and disease, but also more productive to avoid a food crisis in a time of global crises.
Another key argument in their arsenal is the new CRISPR-Cas9 technique (often referred to simply as CRISPR), a revolutionary gene-editing tool used for genetic modification of plants. You can think of it as an extremely precise, molecular “scissors” that allows scientists to cut, remove, add, or change specific sections of an organism’s DNA (plant, animal, or microorganism) with unprecedented ease. Its discovery has radically changed biology and medicine, even earning its creators, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
How do these new techniques work? A professor of molecular genetics has the answers
Why is the CRISPR technique so important? Before CRISPR, gene editing was an extremely time-consuming, costly, and often imperfect process. CRISPR has revolutionized the field because it can target a specific gene among tens of thousands, reduces the time and cost of experiments from months (or years) to a few weeks, and can be used in almost any living organism.
But what does this tell us? Is it really safer to genetically modify any organism—especially the ones we put on our plates? Michael Antoniou, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics and Toxicology at King’s College, London, and one of the event’s keynote speakers, explained to OW exactly how the process works and why the result of such genetic engineering is not harmless.
PART TWO: INTERVIEW
OW: We hear that CRISPR is a “molecular pair of scissors” of absolute precision. From your talk, I understood that silencing one gene could “awaken” others, unknown mechanisms (epigenetic changes) in the plant, potentially making it toxic or allergenic, and that this is not solely due to the risk of cutting in the wrong places (off-target mutations). Is that correct?
MA: Contrary to what is often claimed, the CRISPR/Cas NGT tool is not entirely precise. The cleavage of double-stranded DNA by CRISPR/Cas does indeed target a narrow, predetermined region. However, after the double-stranded DNA is cut, the “genetic modification” is at the mercy of the cell’s DNA repair mechanisms (which aim to repair the cut in the double-stranded DNA). To disrupt a gene’s function, the genetic engineer typically relies on a small insertion or deletion of DNA base pairs to disrupt the normal gene sequence and, consequently, its function.
However, large, unintended insertions or deletions of DNA base pairs can often occur. The result of such a process can lead to the disruption of multiple genes or create a new functional gene sequence. These changes may lead to unintended alterations in the plant’s biochemistry and composition, which, in turn, may result in the production of new toxins or allergens, or in reduced nutritional value.
No gene or its protein product functions in isolation, but rather as part of an incredibly sophisticated, finely balanced, and regulated network. Thus, altering just one gene and its protein product – let alone multiple genes and proteins – can disrupt the function of this network, leading to significant changes in biochemistry and physiology.
It is a proven and indisputable fact, known for decades, that the process of plant cell culture in the laboratory introduces large-scale DNA damage sites numbering in the hundreds or even thousands. The transformation process “adds” to this DNA damage. And this occurs regardless of the action of the CRISPR/Cas tool.
The truly alarming prospect is that, with the deregulation of NGTs, producers of plant-based food products will not conduct any research to determine exactly what happened, as I described above. An NGT tomato may look and grow like a tomato, but what changes in its biochemistry and composition will have occurred?
As a result, NGT products that may contain toxins or allergens will enter the market. And without proper labelling, if people start experiencing health problems, it will be nearly impossible to identify the cause!
Finally, once the new genetically modified crops are planted in the wider environment, they will spread uncontrollably. They are, after all, living organisms and will reproduce. Thus, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recall any NGT plant that is subsequently found to be toxic or allergenic! They will be in the food chain forever. Is this a risk we want to take with this new and highly experimental technology?
OW: Looking ahead 10 years from now, what is the greatest scientific achievement you hope to see resulting from the application of CRISPR, and in which field? Conversely, what is your greatest fear?
MA: In my opinion, the greatest achievements we can expect from the application of CRISPR gene editing are in the medical field, where it can be used to treat genetically inherited diseases. For example, a CRISPR-based gene therapy called Casgevy has already been approved in the EU for the treatment of people with beta-thalassemia. It is important to note that medical applications of CRISPR are subject to strict regulations, are tested for safety and efficacy, and are limited to the individual receiving treatment.
I have two main fears:
First, the use of CRISPR gene editing in humans for non-clinical reasons, but rather for character enhancement. Such eugenic applications are unethical and serve no social purpose.
Second, the uncontrolled, untested, and unlabelled release of genetically modified foods for the reasons I mentioned above.
OW: If we completely reject CRISPR in agriculture, what is the scientifically viable and equally rapid solution for feeding 10 billion people under increasingly severe drought conditions?
MA: Supporters of genetic engineering in agriculture, both in the past and today, use this kind of argument to promote the necessity of their products. However, this amounts to emotional blackmail! Research by the World Bank and the UN’s FAO explained that the reason people go hungry is not due to a lack of food [in any region or country], but to the inability to access food because of poverty. People either don’t have the money to buy food or don’t have access to land to farm. Thus, food problems on a global scale are due to socioeconomic reasons, not a lack of food. Increasing food production by any means will not help the situation.
In addition, it is important to keep two other things in mind:
First, 40% of the food that is grown is wasted and never consumed.
Second, large quantities of grain (excluding legumes) are fed to animals every year to feed 3 billion people, instead of being used to feed those same people. On average, 8 tons of grain/legumes are needed to produce 1 ton of meat. You don’t have to be a math genius to realise that by reducing waste and cutting back (not eliminating) meat consumption, even more food will be available for people.
So, if the world’s population does indeed reach 10 billion by mid-century, feeding them will not be a problem. We could do it now; all it takes is the political will for social change toward a fairer, better world, so that the food that has already been produced is available to those who need it!
As for the need for NGTs to address the challenges of climate change (e.g., drought), as I mentioned at the symposium, they are doomed to fail. Traits such as drought tolerance, resistance to disease and pathogens, and higher yield are genetically complex traits that are based on the function of many gene families. Modifying one or a few genes using NGT techniques cannot produce complex traits. Only natural reproduction can bring together gene families to effectively produce these complex genetic traits.
As Claire Robinson [editor’s note: journalist, author, and director of GMWatch, an independent information service on genetically modified crops, genetically modified foods, and chemical pesticides] points out, what we need are climate-ready agricultural systems, not hypothetical climate-ready crops.
We need to move away from unsustainable chemical and transgenic genetic engineering/NGT toward agroecological systems that are robust, diverse, and capable of providing food security.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with the crop (and animal) varieties we have at our disposal right now. The agricultural system in which we use them is in urgent need of reform.
Image: Shutterstock (licensed purchase)