Explore the vast range of titles available.

Products derived from agricultural biotechnology is fast becoming one of the biggest agricultural trade commodities globally, clothing us, feeding our livestock, and fueling our eco-friendly cars. This exponential growth occurs despite asynchronous regulatory schemes around the world, ranging from moratoriums and prohibitions on genetically modified (GM) organisms, to regulations that treat both conventional and biotech novel plant products under the same regulatory framework. Given the enormous surface area being cultivated, there is no longer a question of acceptance or outright need for biotech crop varieties. Recent recognition of the researchers for the development of a genome editing technique using CRISPR/Cas9 by the Nobel Prize committee is another step closer to developing and cultivating new varieties of agricultural crops. By employing precise, efficient, yet affordable genome editing techniques, new genome edited crops are entering country regulatory schemes for commercialization. Countries which currently dominate in cultivating and exporting GM crops are quickly recognizing different types of gene-edited products by comparing the products to conventionally bred varieties. This nuanced legislative development, first implemented in Argentina, and soon followed by many, shows considerable shifts in the landscape of agricultural biotechnology products. The evolution of the law on gene edited crops demonstrates that the law is not static and must adjust to the mores of society, informed by the experiences of 25 years of cultivation and regulation of GM crops. The crux of this review is a consolidation of the global legislative landscape on GM crops, as it stands, building on earlier works by specifically addressing how gene edited crops will fit into the existing frameworks. This work is the first of its kind to synthesize the applicable regulatory documents across the globe, with a focus on GM crop cultivation, and provides links to original legislation on GM and gene edited crops.

In Norway, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are regulated through the Gene Technology Act of 1993, which has received international attention for its inclusion of non-safety considerations. In 2017, the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board triggered a process to revise the Act that included a public consultation and resulted in the “Proposal for relaxation.” Using poststructuralist discourse analysis, we critically analyze the premises and processes through which the proposal for relaxation was developed—including the public consultation—to understand the range of stakeholder concerns and how these concerns shaped the final proposal. We find that the proposal does not include all concerns equally. The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board’s privileging of technological matters and its preference for tier-based regulation skewed the proposal in a way that reduced broader societal concerns to technological definitions and marginalized discussion of the social, cultural, and ethical issues raised by new gene technologies. To prevent such narrowing of stakeholder concerns in the future, we propose Latour’s model for political economy as a tool to gauge the openness of consultations for biotechnology regulation.

CRISPR-Cas9, the “genetic scissors”, is being presaged as a revolutionary technology, having tremendous potential to create designer crops by introducing precise and targeted modifications in the genome to achieve global food security in the face of climate change and increasing population. Traditional genetic engineering relies on random and unpredictable insertion of isolated genes or foreign DNA elements into the plant genome. However, CRISPR-Cas based gene editing does not necessarily involve inserting a foreign DNA element into the plant genome from different species but introducing new traits by precisely altering the existing genes. CRISPR edited crops are touching markets, however, the world community is divided over whether these crops should be considered genetically modified (GM) or non-GM. Classification of CRISPR edited crops, especially transgene free crops as traditional GM crops, will significantly affect their future and public acceptance in some regions. Therefore, the future of the CRISPR edited crops is depending upon their regulation as GM or non-GMs, and their public perception. Here we briefly discuss how CRISPR edited crops are different from traditional genetically modified crops. In addition, we discuss different CRISPR reagents and their delivery tools to produce transgene-free CRISPR edited crops. Moreover, we also summarize the regulatory classification of CRISPR modifications and how different countries are regulating CRISPR edited crops. We summarize that the controversy of CRISPR-edited plants as GM or non-GM will continue until a universal, transparent, and scalable regulatory framework for CRISPR-edited plants will be introduced worldwide, with increased public awareness by involving all stakeholders.

Global climate change is likely to severely impact human food production. This comes at a time when predicted demand for primary foodstuffs by a growing human population and changing global diets is already outpacing a stagnating annual rate of increase in crop productivity. Additionally, the time required by crop breeding and bioengineering to release improved varieties to farmers is substantial, meaning that any crop improvements needed to mitigate food shortages in the 2040s would need to start now. In this perspective, the rationale for improvements in photosynthetic efficiency as a breeding objective for higher yields is outlined. Subsequently, using simple simulation models it is shown how predicted changes in temperature and atmospheric [CO2] affect leaf photosynthetic rates. The chloroplast accounts for the majority of leaf nitrogen in crops. Within the chloroplast about 25% of nitrogen is invested in the carboxylase, Rubisco, which catalyses the first step of CO2 assimilation. Most of the remaining nitrogen is invested in the apparatus to drive carbohydrate synthesis and regenerate ribulose-1:5-bisphosphate (RuBP), the CO2-acceptor molecule at Rubisco. At preindustrial [CO2], investment in these two aspects may have been balanced resulting in co-limitation. At today's [CO2], there appears to be over-investment in Rubisco, and despite the counter-active effects of rising temperature and [CO2], this imbalance is predicted to worsen with global climate change. By breeding or engineering restored optimality under future conditions increased productivity could be achieved in both tropical and temperate environments without additional nitrogen fertilizer. Given the magnitude of the potential shortfall, better storage conditions, improved crop management and better crop varieties will all be needed. With the short time-scale at which food demand is expected to outpace supplies, all available technologies to improve crop varieties, from classical crop breeding to crop genetic engineering should be employed. This will require vastly increased public and private investment to support translation of first discovery in laboratories to replicated field trials, and an urgent re-evaluation of regulation of crop genetic engineering.

The international working group “Development of methods for identification of foodstuffs produced by means of genetic engineering techniques” was established pursuant to § 64 of the German Food and Feed Code (LFGB). It has developed a guideline for implementing and verifying digital PCR methods previously validated as real-time PCR techniques. While event-specific methods in testing of genetically modified organisms (GMO) have traditionally relied on real-time PCR, new digital PCR technologies offer significant advantages and therefore, leading to an increased use by control laboratories. This guideline provides practical recommendations for transferring the real-time PCR to digital PCR and for verifying the digital PCR method. The guideline is applicable to analysis of GMO in food, feed and seed and is freely available on the website of the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL).

African countries face key challenges in the deployment of GM crops due to incongruities in the processes for effective and efficient commercial release while simultaneously ensuring food and environmental safety. Against the backdrop of the preceding scenario, and for the effective and efficient commercial release of GM crops for cultivation by farmers, while simultaneously ensuring food and environmental safety, there is a need for the close collaboration of and the interplay between the biosafety competent authorities and the variety release authorities. The commercial release of genetically modified (GM) crops for cultivation requires the approval of biosafety regulatory packages. The evaluation and approval of lead events fall under the jurisdiction of competent national authorities for biosafety (which may be ministries, autonomous authorities, or agencies). The evaluation of lead events fundamentally comprises a review of environmental, food, and feed safety data as provided for in the Biosafety Acts, implementing regulations, and, in some cases, the involvement of other relevant legal instruments. Although the lead GM event may be commercially released for farmers to cultivate, it is often introgressed into locally adapted and farmer preferred non-GM cultivars that are already released and grown by the farmers. The introduction of new biotechnology products to farmers is a process that includes comprehensive testing in the laboratory, greenhouse, and field over some time. The process provides answers to questions about the safety of the products before being introduced into the environment and marketplace. This is the first step in regulatory approvals. The output of the research and development phase of the product development cycle is the identification of a safe and best performing event for advancement to regulatory testing, likely commercialization, and general release. The process of the commercial release of new crop varieties in countries with established formal seed systems is guided by well-defined procedures and approval systems and regulated by the Seed Acts and implemented regulations. In countries with seed laws, no crop varieties are approved for commercial cultivation prior to the fulfillment of the national performance trials and the distinctness, uniformity, and stability tests, as well as prior to the approval by the National Variety Release Committee. This review outlines key challenges faced by African countries in the deployment of GM crops and cites lessons learned as well as best practices from countries that have successfully commercialized genetically engineered crops.

The combined availability of whole genome sequences and genome editing tools is set to revolutionize the field of fruit biotechnology by enabling the introduction of targeted genetic changes with unprecedented control and accuracy, both to explore emergent phenotypes and to introduce new functionalities. Although plasmid-mediated delivery of genome editing components to plant cells is very efficient, it also presents some drawbacks, such as possible random integration of plasmid sequences in the host genome. Additionally, it may well be intercepted by current process-based GMO regulations, complicating the path to commercialization of improved varieties. Here, we explore direct delivery of purified CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) to the protoplast of grape cultivar and apple cultivar such as fruit crop plants for efficient targeted mutagenesis. We targeted , a susceptible gene in order to increase resistance to powdery mildew in grape cultivar and , and in the apple to increase resistance to fire blight disease. Furthermore, efficient protoplast transformation, the molar ratio of Cas9 and sgRNAs were optimized for each grape and apple cultivar. The targeted mutagenesis insertion and deletion rate was analyzed using targeted deep sequencing. Our results demonstrate that direct delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 RNPs to the protoplast system enables targeted gene editing and paves the way to the generation of DNA-free genome edited grapevine and apple plants.

A special regulatory regime applies to products of recombinant nucleic acid modifications. A ruling from the European Court of Justice has interpreted this regulatory regime in a way that it also applies to emerging mutagenesis techniques. Elsewhere regulatory progress is also ongoing. In 2015, Argentina launched a regulatory framework, followed by Chile in 2017 and recently Brazil and Colombia. In March 2018, the USDA announced that it will not regulate genome-edited plants differently if they could have also been developed through traditional breeding. Canada has an altogether different approach with their Plants with Novel Traits regulations. Australia is currently reviewing its Gene Technology Act. This article illustrates the deviation of the European Union’s (EU’s) approach from the one of most of the other countries studied here. Whereas the EU does not implement a case-by-case approach, this approach is taken by several other jurisdictions. Also, the EU court ruling adheres to a process-based approach while most other countries have a stronger emphasis on the regulation of the resulting product. It is concluded that, unless a functioning identity preservation system for products of directed mutagenesis can be established, the deviation results in a risk of asynchronous approvals and disruptions in international trade.