The laws would have negative consequences for agriculture, society and the economy. This accusation is in the title of a position paper of 75 research institutions from Europe, which is the SPIEGEL.
In it, the institutes demand to revise the European genetic engineering law and to exempt certain genetically modified plants from the genetic engineering law of the European Union (EU).
The products could then be sold in the supermarket as conventional cereals, fruits and vegetables. So far this is not possible. Genetically modified plants must undergo rigorous safety testing and labeling in Europe.
The regulation is in line with a "de facto ban", according to a press release on research organization paper. The new methods offer the opportunity to react quickly to a changing and rougher environment in plant breeding.
more on the subject
German Max Planck Researcher Why this biologist has nothing against genetically modified plants
In this context, the researchers also mention the drought in Europe this year, which has led to significant crop failures. The cost of financial aid to farmers is also borne by the taxpayer.
As early as August, government advisers had spoken in favor of amending the Genetic Engineering Law. Otherwise Germany would miss a "biological revolution", it was said at that time.
Breeding against the drought
Background of the debate is a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from July 2018. He had judged that genetically modified plants must be strictly regulated, even if they can not distinguish them from breeding.
So-called gene scissors (Crispr) cause breaks in the genetic material, which are also used in breeding, for example. However, such changes can also be made with radioactive radiation and chemicals - a long-established practice of breeders. However, varieties bred in this way are excluded from genetic engineering law. Researchers had hoped that this would also apply to corresponding applications of gene scissors. However, the verdict was different.
The most important thing about the Crispr genetic engineering judgment
What was decided?
If plants are modified with modern genetic engineering, they can no longer be distinguished from breeding. It was therefore a matter of dispute whether these plants fell under the strict genetic engineering law or - like breeding - can be freely cultivated and sold as food.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now decided that the plants, like all other genetically modified, must be strictly regulated. However, the ruling is controversial, because other methods are already permitted in the breeding, in which the genetic material is changed in a similar way. For example, plants may be radiolabelled or treated with chemicals.
How is the new technology different from breeding?
The starting point in both methods is a cut in the DNA. Of course, they arise, for example, by the sun's rays. Breeders may use radiation or chemicals to cut the DNA randomly at many different sites in the genome. In the new genetic engineering gene-scissors produce the cuts targeted.
If the cut is made, nature, breeding and genetic engineering are exactly the same: the cell tries to repair the damage. This is a natural mechanism that does not work perfectly. So it can happen that the cell builds at the breakpoint one or more wrong bases in the DNA strand. These write errors are sufficient to disable or modify the function of whole genes. Creating plants with new properties.
What is the difference to old genetic engineering methods?
Before the development of new gene scissors such as Crispr, genetic engineering was associated with major genetic alterations. Whole genes were removed or shut down and partly built-in information from other sources. The procedure always left traces in the cell, so that the organisms were clearly identified as genetically modified.
It's different with the new gene scissors. It is possible that the scissors only cuts the genome. The cell then tries to repair that cut, causing errors. Such mutations also occur naturally in plants, except that here no scissors cut the DNA, but for example sunbeams.
Because gene scissors leave no mark on the genome, plants treated with them do not differ from naturally mutated or cultivated specimens. The control is therefore difficult.
Although it is also possible to incorporate foreign genes into the genome with gene scissors, such plants were not the subject of the judgment.
How dangerous are the plants?
GM opponents warn against unforeseeable risks and invoke the precautionary principle, according to which damage to the environment should be avoided in advance.
Scientists, on the other hand, argue that, according to this interpretation of the precautionary principle, breeding plants should not be grown and eaten without further ado.
In them, the use of radiation or chemicals sometimes significantly more mutations take place, moreover, completely uncontrolled. "From my point of view, the new methods have no other risks than conventional breeding methods," says Goetz Hensel from the Leibniz Institute for Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research in Gatersleben in Saxony-Anhalt.
What's up with the risk warnings that were last on Crispr?
In early June 2018, headlines circulated that Crispr was more uncertain than previously thought. Behind this is a study of human retinal cells. Researchers had investigated how Crispr causes mutations in the genome that were not planned. This is important for the safety of possible therapies in humans.
It does not matter for the safety of Crispr-treated plants. In plant breeding, plants with significantly more mutations have already proven safe. We have been eating these for decades.
How does Crispr inventor Charpentier assess the technology?
There is a rumor in social media that Emmanuelle Charpentier, one of the inventors of the Crispr collision, pleads for a strict regulation of technology. However, this only applies in connection with human use. For example, Charpentier advises caution in gene modifications in human embryos.
The use of Crispr in plant breeding is different. The ECJ holiday described Charpentier in interview with "ZEIT ONLINE" as "a missed opportunity." "The technology is much more accurate than previous procedures and very safe," she said, referring to the ability to produce plants in the future, even in very dry or grow to wet areas.
Competitive disadvantage due to current regulation
One of the latest breakthroughs in plant breeding is gene-shearing precision breeding, the researchers write in their statement. It can help to tailor plants to the conditions in the regions where they will grow later. In addition, plants with better nutrient content, lower risk of allergies and fertilizer could be produced.
Only in October, researchers had recreated the breeding of modern tomatoes from wild tomatoes within a very short time. In Gen-Scheren breeding, it was possible to obtain healthy ingredients and flavor components that have been lost in classical breeding.
"Leading plant research organizations are committed to developing sustainable agriculture solutions," says molecular biologist Dirk Inzé of the University of Ghent in Belgium. However, the projects would be made more difficult by the legislation. Plant breeders in Europe would be at a competitive disadvantage due to the current regime.
In some regions of the world, genetically modified plants have been grown for decades and have proven to be safe in principle.
MORE ON THE SUBJECT
Researchers on genetic engineering judgment "As if shotguns were allowed, but scalpels prohibited"
The opinion hopes to encourage legislators in the EU to act based on scientific evidence, the researchers said. That was important "for all of us". The implications for society and the economy are enormous.
Earlier, many researchers had argued that it was no longer a matter of assessing plants based on the technology used to make plants, but rather of their specific properties.
Among the signatories of the opinion are eleven institutions from Germany. Among them directors of three Max Planck Institutes, the President of the German Botanical Society, representatives of the Institute of Biology and Biotechnology of Plants of the University of Münster and the director of the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research.