Toward product-based regulation of crops

Amasino, Richard M.; Brossard, Dominique; Buell, C. Robin; Dixon, Richard A. F.; Falck-Zepeda, José Benjamin; Gallo, Michael A.; Glenna, Leland; Griffin, Timothy J.; Magraw, Daniel; Mallory‐Smith, Carol; Pixley, K.V.; Ransom, Elizabeth; Stelly, David M.; Stewart, C. Neal

doi:10.1126/science.abo3034

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Qaim (2020) suggested that a traitbased regulatory approach would represent an improvement over product-based regulation of crops. This suggestion was reiterated by Gould et al (2022).…”

Section: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Gene editing and agrifood systems

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

vi NARS scientists we can further advance breeding of crops critical to feeding much of the world's population like cassava, sorghum, millet and banana.Around the world, governments have taken a practical approach towards regulation: in cases where changes made via genome editing are synonymous with changes that could have been made using conventional breeding, products undergo similar safety assessments. For edits that lead to insertions of DNA, governments can rely on over three decades' worth of experience in transgenics. This clear regulatory approach has spurred investment by academic and public-sector developers who now have a path to product approvals.Any review of genome editing technology should be accompanied by a discussion on ethics. Valid concerns have been raised over the desire for an unaltered natural environment, maintenance of ancient germplasm, as well as animal rights, and cultures around the world will have questions about how the technology might comply or conflict with religious beliefs. Platforms for societal engagement are much needed to facilitate discussions on ethics, and to educate the public on the technology. Individuals should have the ability to choose products that meet their needs and adhere to their belief systems. A consumer of the future may choose an edited variety because they prioritize sustainability, animal welfare, have allergies, or prefer the taste. A farmer of the future may choose to grow an edited crop because it preserves a favoured variety while making it more resilient to a changing climate, or because it increases yield, or captures carbon from the atmosphere. A successful path to the future is one that includes informed choice.It is my hope that this report will serve as a guiding document for those seeking to responsibly and equitably deploy genome editing technologies. All of human health depends on agriculture. It has been just over 10 years since CRISPR genome editing emerged as a tool; now it is time to wield it wisely.

show abstract

“…Qaim (2020) suggested that a traitbased regulatory approach would represent an improvement over product-based regulation of crops. This suggestion was reiterated by Gould et al (2022).…”

Section: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 81%

Gene editing and agrifood systems

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As indicated by Turnbull et al (2021), the laws should not be static and must adjust according to evolving science-led knowledge based on the years of cultivating GM crops elsewhere. Although omics technology could be incorporated into the strategy for evaluating GM biofortified crops, because it allows comparing it with a non-genetically engineered cultivar (Gould et al, 2022), the analyses should give priority to the nutrient composition of the edible parts. This product-based approach depends on characteristics that are measured by advances in molecular biology.…”

Section: Bioaccessability Regulation and Acceptability Of Genetically...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofortification to avoid malnutrition in humans in a changing climate: Enhancing micronutrient bioavailability in seed, tuber, and storage roots

Dwivedi¹,

Garcia‐Oliveira

Govindaraj

et al. 2023

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malnutrition results in enormous socio-economic costs to the individual, their community, and the nation’s economy. The evidence suggests an overall negative impact of climate change on the agricultural productivity and nutritional quality of food crops. Producing more food with better nutritional quality, which is feasible, should be prioritized in crop improvement programs. Biofortification refers to developing micronutrient -dense cultivars through crossbreeding or genetic engineering. This review provides updates on nutrient acquisition, transport, and storage in plant organs; the cross-talk between macro- and micronutrients transport and signaling; nutrient profiling and spatial and temporal distribution; the putative and functionally characterized genes/single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with Fe, Zn, and β-carotene; and global efforts to breed nutrient-dense crops and map adoption of such crops globally. This article also includes an overview on the bioavailability, bioaccessibility, and bioactivity of nutrients as well as the molecular basis of nutrient transport and absorption in human. Over 400 minerals (Fe, Zn) and provitamin A-rich cultivars have been released in the Global South. Approximately 4.6 million households currently cultivate Zn-rich rice and wheat, while ~3 million households in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America benefit from Fe-rich beans, and 2.6 million people in sub-Saharan Africa and Brazil eat provitamin A-rich cassava. Furthermore, nutrient profiles can be improved through genetic engineering in an agronomically acceptable genetic background. The development of “Golden Rice” and provitamin A-rich dessert bananas and subsequent transfer of this trait into locally adapted cultivars are evident, with no significant change in nutritional profile, except for the trait incorporated. A greater understanding of nutrient transport and absorption may lead to the development of diet therapy for the betterment of human health.

show abstract

“…These criteria could be used by policy makers to design a more flexible and proportionate risk assessment framework for gene edited plants. Recently, several regulatory options have been proposed ( Bratlie et al., 2019 ; Kearns et al., 2021 ; Gould et al., 2022 ). They range from maintaining the status quo (full risk assessment of genome edited organisms as GMOs) to product-based regulation or regulation based on the presence/absence of foreign DNA in the genome.…”

Section: Genome Editing Versus Traditional Genetic Modificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving abiotic stress tolerance of forage grasses – prospects of using genome editing

Sustek-Sánchez

Rognli²,

Rostoks³

et al. 2023

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to an increase in the consumption of food, feed, and fuel and to meet global food security needs for the rapidly growing human population, there is a necessity to obtain high-yielding crops that can adapt to future climate changes. Currently, the main feed source used for ruminant livestock production is forage grasses. In temperate climate zones, perennial grasses grown for feed are widely distributed and tend to suffer under unfavorable environmental conditions. Genome editing has been shown to be an effective tool for the development of abiotic stress-resistant plants. The highly versatile CRISPR-Cas system enables increasingly complex modifications in genomes while maintaining precision and low off-target frequency mutations. In this review, we provide an overview of forage grass species that have been subjected to genome editing. We offer a perspective view on the generation of plants resilient to abiotic stresses. Due to the broad factors contributing to these stresses the review focuses on drought, salt, heat, and cold stresses. The application of new genomic techniques (e.g., CRISPR-Cas) allows addressing several challenges caused by climate change and abiotic stresses for developing forage grass cultivars with improved adaptation to the future climatic conditions. Genome editing will contribute towards developing safe and sustainable food systems.

show abstract

Toward product-based regulation of crops

Abstract: Current process-based approaches to regulation are no longer fit for purpose

Cited by 27 publications

References 8 publications

Gene editing and agrifood systems

Gene editing and agrifood systems

Biofortification to avoid malnutrition in humans in a changing climate: Enhancing micronutrient bioavailability in seed, tuber, and storage roots

Improving abiotic stress tolerance of forage grasses – prospects of using genome editing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About