The European Commission appears to be stalling on making a decision on whether gene-edited organisms are the same as genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and thus should be regulated the same or differently. Meanwhile, some EU breeders are urging the Commission to follow Canada’s lead on regulating both.
Genetically-modified vs genetically-edited
Technically the two are very different. GMOs have a gene added from another organism to produce a new trait. Gene-edited organisms have no genes added from another organism; instead, existing genes are edited to change, repair or remove a defective or unwanted gene.
For a quick overview of how scientists are using gene-editing on organisms, check out this short video.
You can easily see the many advantages in gene-editing ranging from ending animal suffering, as is the case in breeding hornless cattle rather than subjecting animals to horn removal, to eradicating malaria by making mosquitoes unable to carry the parasite and thus saving 1000 people a day from dying from that disease.
Certain famine and disease vs unknown futures
The European Commission has missed two deadlines on making the decision as to whether the two will be classed together. If it comes to that conclusion, gene-edited animals and plants would be as effectively curbed on EU farms as GMOs are now.
"If Europe does that, I think they will probably send themselves into the stone age of agricultural biotechnology," said Cellectis CEO Andre Choulika in a Reuters report.
And that is likely true. Further, the food chain is entering an age of increased vulnerabilities ranging from new external threats coming from climate change, to the rise of antibiotic-resistant and antibiotic-immune viruses and bacteria.
If Europe fails to use new methods to address these pressing threats, widespread famine may soon follow.
However, it is important to understand the risks in gene-editing too.