Genome editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 are being tabled as a way forward but there are strong views for and against the idea. What’s behind the science and the debate? There is debate about how to classify and label genome editing with tools like CRISPR-Cas9. The European Union uses “new genomic techniques” to refer to techniques that are capable of altering the genetic material of an organism and that have emerged or have been mainly developed since 2001.
EU law defines GMOs as "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination". However, GMOs developed in the 1990s also used different, less precise, methods than new genome editing tools.
Genome editing’s patent problem fuels concern for the future of food
This content was published on Jan 31, 2022Jan 31, 2022 Genome editing is touted as a solution to feeding a planet battered by climate change. But an outdated patent system could stifle its potential.
Advocates of genome editing, including big seed companies, say the technology is simply speeding up what already happens in nature or through traditional breeding methods, and that therefore, the risks are minimal. They also argue that tools like CRISPR-Cas9 are more precise than earlier genetic engineering techniques, so there is less risk that a useful gene is destroyed in the process. Critics contend that genome editing can create a range of changes to the genome in plants that pose risks to biodiversity, water and soil, human health, and organic food production. Some are concerned that such crops could outcompete natural species and create broad monocultures, which could wreak havoc on ecosystems. Some of the risks aren’t fully understood, many argue.
Read the complete article at www.swissinfo.ch.
