Time for a CRISPR discussion about genetic engineering

Changing an organism’s genome is a profound act, and the tools you use to make the changes don’t alleviate the need for responsible regulation.

Since bursting onto the scene in 2012, CRISPR technology has been used to modify dozens of species from bacteria to livestock to plants, and even human embryos. Many countries have put ethical guardrails in place to prohibit creating designer babies. However, in agriculture, gene-edited crops are largely exempt from regulatory oversight, creating a “Wild West” where anything goes and edited crops are free to enter the food supply.

Unlike “traditional” genetically modified organisms (GMO)—used since the 1990s to create Roundup Ready seeds and many other widely used products—editing doesn’t involve inserting “transgenic” DNA from other organisms. Instead, it tweaks the genes that already exist. As such, proponents claim it’s a safer approach: no Frankenfoods, just selective breeding on steroids.

Following a massive industry lobbying campaign, such arguments have gained traction around the world. In Europe, regulators are forging ahead with a two-tier regulatory system for modified crops. While traditional GMOs remain heavily regulated, gene-edited crops are being given a free pass, with no oversight or labeling required. (Some heavily edited crops will still undergo a degree of scrutiny, though far less than GMO crops.)

GENE EDITING NEEDS OVERSIGHT

In the U.S., the USDA’s SECURE Rule had, since 2020, similarly exempted most edited crops from regulatory oversight—until it was ruled “arbitrary and capricious” and struck down last December by a California judge. For now, the USDA has reverted to its pre-2020 rulebook—full of red tape, but at least even-handed in the burdens imposed on agtech innovators.

The issue here isn’t that there’s anything wrong with gene editing. One of us (Randall) spent several years leading gene editing research at numerous companies, including Inari, Arcadia, and Monsanto (now Bayer), and we can tell you that CRISPR is an incredible tool. It’s already being used to create amazing new products—from bananas that won’t go brown to rice that’s resistant to destructive viruses. Researchers are also developing vitamin-packed tomatoes, carbon-sequestering strains of rice, and high-yield wheat. They should be applauded: We’ll need all these innovations, and more, to grow healthy, tasty, and affordable food for billions of people in a warming world.

But while there isn’t anything uniquely dangerous about gene editing, there isn’t anything uniquely safe about it either. With both gene editing and transgenic methods, you’re rewriting the genome—and what matters is the impact of the new genetic content, not where the underlying DNA “letters” came from. Whatever methods are used, genetic engineering can deliver enormous benefits, but brings real risks—and requires proper oversight to ensure safety and maintain public confidence.

THE GMO BACKLASH

However, the current bifurcated approach that gives gene editing a pass creates a significant risk that regulators are sowing the seeds of a future backlash against genetic engineering. Paradoxically, GMO crops have one important benefit over gene-edited crops: Precisely because they contain transgenic genetic information, they can be easily detected using simple lab testing. Gene-edited crops, on the other hand, are typically indistinguishable from conventional crops, so if an edited crop were found to have harmful traits, it would be extremely difficult—and unimaginably expensive—to verifiably remove it from the global food chain.

The approach also distorts the marketplace by creating incentives for gene editing at the expense of future innovations using proven GMO technologies that farmers and consumers already rely on.

Unfortunately, by downplaying the need for meaningful oversight of edited crops, we risk playing into the hands of the least scrupulous market participants. In China, gene editing techniques have already been misused to unlawfully edit the genomes of unborn babies, and Chinese firms are racing to create gene-edited medical treatments in ways that have raised eyebrows among Western regulators. Now, China is actively promoting gene editing for crops and livestock, too, in a bid to end its reliance on U.S. soybeans and other farm exports. Want to place a bet that no corners will be cut along the way?

We’re no Luddites, with Randall spending his career using genetic techniques to improve crops. Genetic engineering, encompassing both transgenic methods and gene editing, is the defining technological breakthrough of our time (sorry, ChatGPT). But it’s also among the most misunderstood, and certainly the most maligned, of modern technologies. Crop innovators, burned once by the demonization of GMOs, are understandably eager to avoid tarring gene editing methods with the same brush.

A BACKDOOR APPROACH

But in the rush to wave through gene editing technologies, we’re falling into the same trap. The industry’s arrogant dismissal of safety concerns turned an entire generation against GMOs. Now, instead of being forthright with consumers about the power and potential of gene editing, the industry is trying to sneak it in by the back door as simply an extension of selective breeding methods used since the dawn of agriculture.

The reality is more nuanced. There’s no need to panic about gene editing methods. But there’s also no scientific basis for casting GMO crops as “bad” and edited crops as “good.” Both gene editing and genetic modification are incredibly powerful tools—and the novel plant traits they enable should be welcomed. But they should also be regulated, carefully and effectively—and regulated as products, based on their own unique attributes, regardless of the processes used to create them.

It’s time to move away from process-oriented regulations and focus instead on creating a level playing field for both transgenic and gene-edited crops. We need an honest conversation and clear-eyed regulations of both technologies to protect the safety of the food chain—and ensure that vital new agtech breakthroughs continue to develop in safe, transparent, and sustainable ways.

Shely Aronov is CEO and cofounder of Innerplant. Randell Schultz, PhD, is vice president of research and development at Innerplant.

View the full article