Regulatory, Ethical, and Social Aspects of CRISPR Crops

Ahmad, Aftab; Ghouri, Muhammad Zubair; Munawar, Nayla; Ismail, Muhammad; Ashraf, Sidra; Aftab, Syed Ovais

doi:10.1007/978-981-15-7142-8_9

Cited by 13 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rapid rise in CRISPR-edited crops in recent years has raised concerns about regulatory oversights. As a consequence, researchers have focused on developing CRISPR-edited crops that are comparable to conventionally-bred crops, with no transgenes and minimal off-targets [ 127 ]. Two particular concerns are off-targets and the presence of genome-editing reagents in final products.…”

Section: Crispr/cas Reagents and Their Cargosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reagent selection in CRISPR-mediated plant genome editing can facilitate commercial applications, influence regulatory processes, control off-target numbers in the final product, and affect public acceptance of edited plants and products. CRISPR reagents (sgRNA and Cas9) for plant genome editing can take the form of DNA, RNA, or RNPs [ 127 , 132 ].…”

Section: Crispr/cas Reagents and Their Cargosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although CRISPR crops are being grown and developed worldwide, this trend has been accompanied by much debate about legal, ethical, and policy issues associated with these crops [ 127 ]. This has typically focused on the relative precision and specificity of different CRISPR techniques, the frequency and nature of off-targets, the nature of risk assessment methods for these crops, and whether existing GMO regulations should be applied to CRISPR-edited crops [ 122 ].…”

Section: Potential Concerns Associated With Crispr Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the US and EU assess CRISPR-edited crop plants under very different regulatory frameworks. Although many countries have clarified their regulatory frameworks to exclude CRISPR crops produced using SDN1, SDN2, and SDN3 systems [ 127 ], most are still based on existing GMO regulations.…”

Section: Potential Concerns Associated With Crispr Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Delivering these reagents involves Agrobacterium, biolistic, or viral-mediated methods, or protoplast-mediated transformation. Selection of reagents and delivery methods has a major influence on end products and consequently on the regulatory requirements for final products [ 127 ]. The following section discusses various reagents and delivery methods together with their downstream effects, such as off-target impacts, regulating triggers, and product acceptance.…”

Section: Potential Concerns Associated With Crispr Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops

Ahmad

Munawar

Khan

et al. 2021

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The revolutionary technology of CRISPR/Cas systems and their extraordinary potential to address fundamental questions in every field of biological sciences has led to their developers being awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. In agriculture, CRISPR/Cas systems have accelerated the development of new crop varieties with improved traits—without the need for transgenes. However, the future of this technology depends on a clear and truly global regulatory framework being developed for these crops. Some CRISPR-edited crops are already on the market, and yet countries and regions are still divided over their legal status. CRISPR editing does not require transgenes, making CRISPR crops more socially acceptable than genetically modified crops, but there is vigorous debate over how to regulate these crops and what precautionary measures are required before they appear on the market. This article reviews intended outcomes and risks arising from the site-directed nuclease CRISPR systems used to improve agricultural crop plant genomes. It examines how various CRISPR system components, and potential concerns associated with CRISPR/Cas, may trigger regulatory oversight of CRISPR-edited crops. The article highlights differences and similarities between GMOs and CRISPR-edited crops, and discusses social and ethical concerns. It outlines the regulatory framework for GMO crops, which many countries also apply to CRISPR-edited crops, and the global regulatory landscape for CRISPR-edited crops. The article concludes with future prospects for CRISPR-edited crops and their products.

show abstract

Section: Crispr/cas Reagents and Their Cargosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crispr/cas Reagents and Their Cargosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Concerns Associated With Crispr Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Concerns Associated With Crispr Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Concerns Associated With Crispr Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops

Ahmad

Munawar

Khan

et al. 2021

IJMS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

European consumer and societal stakeholders' response to crop improvements and new plant breeding techniques

Nair

Fischer

Moscatelli

et al. 2022

Food and Energy Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global demand for providing nutritious, sustainable, and safe diets for a 10 billion population by 2050 while preserving affordability, reducing environmental impacts, and adapting to climate change will require accelerating the transition to sustainable agri‐food systems. A plausible way to help tackle these challenges is by developing new plant varieties that have improved crop yield, plant nutritional quality, and sustainability (or resilience) traits. However, stakeholders, consumers, and citizens' concerns and appreciation of future‐proofing crops and the acceptability of new plant breeding strategies are not well‐established. These groups are actors in the agri‐food systems, and their views, values, needs, and expectations are crucial in helping to co‐design fair, ethical, acceptable, sustainable, and socially desirable policies on new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) and the transition to sustainable agri‐food systems. In this study, we engaged with consumer experts and societal stakeholders to consider their perceptions, expectations, and acceptability of improving crops and NPBTs for future‐proofing the agri‐food systems. Our analysis points to a need for governments to take a proactive role in regulating NPBTs, ensure openness and transparency in breeding new crop varieties, and inform consumers about the effects of these breeding programmes and the risks and benefits of the new crop varieties developed. Consumer experts and societal stakeholders considered these strategies necessary to instil confidence in society about NPBTs and accelerate the transition to sustainable agri‐food systems.

show abstract