Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing

Abstract

Abstract:One of the major problems regarding consumer acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is the possibility that their transgenes could have adverse effects on the environment and/or human health. Genome editing, represented by the CRISPR/Cas9 system, can efficiently achieve transgene-free gene modifications and is anticipated to generate a wide spectrum of plants. However, the public attitude against GMOs suggests that people will initially be unlikely to accept these plants. We herein explored the bottlenecks of consumer acceptance of transgene-free food crops developed by genome editing and made some recommendations. People should not pursue a zero-risk bias regarding such crops.Developers are encouraged to produce cultivars with a trait that would satisfy consumer

A future scenario of the global regulatory landscape regarding genome-edited crops

“…The regulatory stance of the USDA APHIS seems unfavorable because they have applied their GMO regulations to crops generated using genome editing techniques that substantially differ from conventional GMO techniques. It would be vital to interrogate developers about how off-target mutations, which can potentially occur during genome editing (Klug, 2010;Joung and Sander, 2013;Hsu et al, 2014), were investigated in the resultant plants (Araki and Ishii, 2015;Ishii and Araki, 2016;Huang et al, 2016). Although off-target mutations may result in a silent mutation or a loss of function, some could lead to a gain of function through such mechanisms as a frameshift mutation, potentially affecting food safety or the environment (Araki et al, 2014) (Araki and Ishii, 2015;Ishii and Araki, 2016).…”

“…In 2016, New Zealand, which adopts process-based GMO regulation, amended a relevant regulation under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act of 1996 (EPA, 2015). This amendment was performed after the High Court overruled the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decision in 2014 that the deregulation of transgene-free plans produced via NHEJ of genome editing (Ishii and Araki, 2016;Kershen, 2015). The amendment in the regulations showed a very different regulatory direction to Argentina, which clarified the definitions of what is and is not a GMO following consultation by the EPA.…”

“…Agrobacterium-mediated transformation to deliver genome editing nucleases into plant cells (Araki and Ishii, 2015;Ishii and Araki, 2016). In such cases, the Ti plasmid that is used can be incorporated in the plant genome, which may be interpreted as a transgene even under product-based GMO regulations.…”

“…Genome editing can also create insertions or deletions (indels) of various lengths via non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) without a DNA template, mostly resulting in gene disruption. In recent plant research, NHEJ has frequently been used to generate new varieties of major crops, including rice (Oryza sativa), wheat (Triticum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), sweet orange (Citrus sinensis), tomato, soybean and maize (Araki and Ishii, 2015;Hartung and Schiemann, 2014;Ishii and Araki, 2016; Nagamangala Voytas and Gao, 2014). Such reports suggest that NHEJ will be a preferred approach in genome editing-mediated crop breeding because the resultant transgene-free plants may be considered to fall outside of GM crop regulations.…”

Next-generation precision genome engineering and plant biotechnology

“…Finally, regulation issues are somehow mutually connected to consumer acceptance. After considering the bottlenecks for consumer acceptance of genome edited crops, Ishii and Araki stress that people should be informed of the benefits of various plant breeding techniques (Ishii and Araki 2016). Furthermore, trust in the relevant regulatory authorities, transparency and dialogues are vital to implementation.…”