This Review looks at how the latest science around new gene-edited GMOs continues to challenge the narratives that gene editing is precise and its outcomes controllable and predictable (“PRECISE” – OR NOT). Will AI solve these problems? Not any time soon, research efforts suggest (AI AND GENE EDITING). And certain recent developments (HYPERMORPHING) are clearly at odds with the often-repeated claim that this technology only makes small changes in the genome and that therefore it is safe.
An excellent report has been published about the use of genetic engineering, including gene editing and synbio, in conservation (GENE EDITING AND SYNBIO IN CONSERVATION).
We look at how an Exxon scientist admitted that the company’s claims about biofuel produced with gene-edited algae was a heap of BS (HYPE) and at how research out of China indicates that many plants in the gene editing development pipeline are remarkably similar to older style GMOs – yes, yet more herbicide-tolerant crops (REALITY: SAME OLD, SAME OLD).
“PRECISE” – OR NOT
Precisely what are we fermenting?
In a thoughtful article, paediatrician Michelle Perro, MD recounts how she, farmer Howard Vlieger, and scientist Dr John Fagan took their questions about genetically engineered ‘precision fermented food’ directly to the FDA. Michelle writes: “The word ‘precision’ refers primarily to the intended genetic modification and desired product. It does not necessarily tell us the complete composition of what comes out at the other end of the process.” She asks: “What is actually present in the finished ingredient that people are eating?” Dr Fagan presented his research showing that a commercially available “synbio milk” produced using a genetically modified fungus found 236 fungal proteins and 93 compounds in the synbio milk that could not be chemically identified by searching the large databases used by the investigators. Michelle spoke from her own experience about the dramatic decline in children’s health in recent decades and voiced concerns about ever-increasing novel “food” exposures. Howard spoke about livestock, soil, feed, and agriculture.
No cows, no questions: US FDA greenlights animal-free casein
A company called Those Vegan Cowboys has received a no-questions letter from the US FDA for its “precision-fermented casein for cheese, chocolate and nutrition products”. Casein is a protein normally found in cow’s milk. The company declared its produce GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe). Michelle Perro MD commented on the development on X: “Are you kidding me? No questions asked, @FDA @SecKennedy, did you see this? GRAS approval for synbio milk, shown to have 236 fungal proteins and 93 unknowns in a recent study [see above item]. We’ve been sold out. Advice? AVOID.”
Gene-edited banana may not be “precision bred” after all
Tropic Biosciences UK Ltd has applied for permission to market in England a GM banana that has been gene-edited not to go brown when cut. In June, the High Court found that the government’s decision-making on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 was unlawful. But disregarding this, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has granted a marketing notice confirming that the banana qualifies as “precision bred” and therefore as equivalent to what could arise naturally, under those same regulations. Based on that claim of equivalence, pending review by the Food Standards Agency, the banana will escape risk assessment, traceability requirements and labelling. Prof Michael Antoniou explains why the information provided by Tropic fails to demonstrate that the banana is “precision bred” and on the contrary, indicates that it may contain unintended changes that pose risks to health and the environment. He concludes that the banana’s “receipt of permission to enter the marketplace (pending assessment by the Food Standards Agency) has an unsound basis”.
Plant tissue culture (part of the gene editing process) degrades the genome
A recent publication demonstrating the large-scale genomic instability from plant tissue culture – an obligatory part of plant gene editing – looked at the rate of mutation (DNA damage) accumulation, as well as the types of mutation, in cultured walnut tree cells. The researchers found “a >3,500% increase in mutation rates and exhibit whole chromosome duplications, large-scale deletions, somatic recombination events, and increased transposable element activity.” They concluded: “This work raises concerns about the genetic integrity of plants used for biotechnology approaches.”
Scientists lay out molecular verification requirements to prove a GM plant is NGT1
The EU recently adopted Regulation (EU) 2026/1388 for plants developed with new genomic techniques (NGTs). Under this (de)Regulation, Category 1 NGT plants are exempt from most EU requirements applicable to GMOs, provided they meet the criteria of equivalence defined in Annex I. In a recently published preprint, the authors write: “Although these criteria consist of simplified molecular characteristics and numerical thresholds, their molecular, analytical, and regulatory verification is more demanding than the legislative wording may suggest at a first glance.” They explain which measurements and analyses would need to be done in order to verify NGT1 status in a scientifically robust and repeatable way. They add: “Comprehensive identification of all relevant genetic modifications requires whole genome sequencing (WGS) of both the NGT plant and its parental line, followed by comparative bioinformatic analysis.” They specify that long-read whole genome sequencing is the preferred approach to reliably spot alterations in the DNA that may remain undetected using short-read sequencing only. (We at GMWatch are delighted to see our longtime recommendations elaborated in this expert article.)
Scientists must confront uncertainties and limitations of CRISPR gene editing, say researchers
The rapid development of CRISPR-based gene editing has been accompanied by a polarised governance debate about the status of CRISPR-edited crops as GMOs. A new scientific article by researchers at Wageningen University & Research argues that the polarisation around the governance of gene editing partly reflects a failure of public engagement with the current state of research in genomics. CRISPR-based gene-editing technology has become embedded in a narrow narrative about the ease and precision of the technique that misleadingly presents the gene as a stable object under technological control. While this strategic narrowness of CRISPR narratives aims to create public support for gene-editing technologies, the authors argue that it stands in the way of appropriately reflective governance and open public dialogue about societal promises and the unintended consequences of gene editing. In GMWatch's view, this article is well worth reading and easy to understand. It even takes in the gene-edited hornless cattle that turned out to unexpectedly contain antibiotic resistance genes.
AI AND GENE EDITING
AI-assisted design of novel CRISPR/Cas gene editing tools: Hype vs reality
For many years GMWatch has made the science-based case that the process of CRISPR/Cas gene editing is neither precise in operation nor predictable in outcome. In doing so, we have gone against the much-hyped narrative that this technology is precise, efficient, and predictable. Now, in a typically cynical pivot by the pro-GMO lobby and its attendant media, it’s being admitted that CRISPR/Cas gene-editing tools are not precise after all and produce unintended effects both at the intended edit site (on-target) and elsewhere in the genome (off-target). However, this admission has come about only in the context of gene editing scientists supposedly coming up with a “solution” to the problem – in the shape of CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna and her team using AI with the aim of designing CRISPR/Cas gene-editing tools that operate more efficiently and with less off-target alterations. But a closer look at the research suggests that the reality doesn’t live up to the hype with which it’s been greeted.
HYPERMORPHING
Hypermorphing: Minor gene edits with major effects – and major risks
A recent publication by the Innovative Genomics Institute, founded by CRISPR co-developer Jennifer Doudna, reveals a new dimension of next-generation gene editing (new genomic techniques, NGT). When skilfully controlled, even the smallest changes to the genome can have a particularly powerful effect and drastically alter plants. This strategy is known as hypermorphing – that is, the targeted exaggeration of biological traits – and is a cause for particular concern, the Swiss GMO-free organisation SAG points out. This is because under the new EU regulation, NGT plants with fewer than 20 genetic modifications will be authorised without a risk assessment – an arbitrarily set threshold that does not protect against risks. Strategies such as hypermorphing can easily circumvent this threshold whilst still bringing about drastic and potentially risky changes.
GENE EDITING AND SYNBIO IN CONSERVATION
Should conservationists play God?
A new report from Nature Canada is tackling a controversial and complex question: whether conservationists should employ genetic engineering, including gene editing and synthetic biology, in the service of protecting and saving nature. The report was released during the 2026 UN Conference on Biodiversity (COP 17) in Yerevan, Armenia, where synthetic biology is very much a topic of discussion. The report was authored by Mark Butler, Senior Advisor with Nature Canada, and examines the pros and cons of using genetic engineering to eradicate invasive species or engineer plants and animals to be more resilient to rising temperatures. He said: “The loss of nature is heartbreaking and only accelerating, so the argument from some conservationists, government agencies and more recently, Silicon Valley, that we should use every tool in the toolbox, needs to be fully and thoughtfully considered.” While Butler is deeply sympathetic to conservationists who want to use every tool in the toolbox, he is also deeply sceptical that there will be net benefit to nature from the use of genetic engineering. Read our article about this excellent report here.
HYPE
Exxon scientist says the company knew its gene-edited algae biofuel ads were BS
If you read, watched, or listened to any news in 2018-2019, you surely came across Exxon’s ads for algae biofuel. They were everywhere: on TV, in print ads and digital banners, and in a New York Times paid post saying Exxon was helping to solve climate change with gene-edited green algae. Exxon’s interest in algae-based biofuels dates to 2009, when it unveiled a $600M investment in algae with Synthetic Genomics, a biotech company co-founded by Craig Venter. In 2017, Exxon Mobil and Synthetic Genomics announced a big breakthrough using the gene-editing technology CRISPR. Now an Exxon scientist admits that the algae biofuel it hyped up was total nonsense.
REALITY: SAME OLD, SAME OLD
Scientists in China develop new gene-edited herbicide-tolerant crops
Scientists in China have developed new gene-edited herbicide-tolerant crops – “rice and wheat plants that shrug off herbicide doses far exceeding what farmers normally spray”. This will allow the heavy spraying of HHPD inhibitors like isoxaflutole. Isoxaflutole is a suspected carcinogen. We can expect plenty more of the same – see this.
Infographic: Why gene-edited crops are the same as GMOs
A useful infographic explains why gene-edited crops are the same as GMOs (and indeed, are GMOs). Apart from point 1, which relates to India’s law on GMOs, the points apply universally.
