What should be the best regulatory framework for Gene Editing

This article raises the touchy question of the state of the debate on GMOs, in the context of the multiplication of new genomic techniques (or NGT).

To date there is no adequacy of the current framework with regard to all these so-called new genomic techniques, often referred to as New Genomic Techniques or NGTs.

The European Commission has announced a proposal for the end of 2023 for plants produced by certain NGTs.

Given that since several years, a more favourable attitude – especially among young consumers – towards GMOs has been noticeable, is it more realistic to imagine a new global regulatory framework for both techniques rather than a tailor-made approach for gene editing alongside the current GMO framework?

For consumers, gene editing and genetic modification techniques seem to be interchangeable. In reality, there are significant differences between these methods.

Advancements in biotechnology have led to the development of new genomic techniques that help breed new plant varieties by altering the genetic material of an organism with higher precision than conventional breeding techniques. While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) introduce novel configurations of genetic material typically derived from other organisms, some gene editing methods can lead to limited changes that may also occur through conventional breeding or happen in nature. For instance, CRISPR allows multiple modifications to be made in a single experiment without permanently inducing foreign DNA.

However, to date, the current framework does not seem to be adequate for these new genomic techniques.

In the European Union, the marketing and cultivation of all genetically modified organisms (“GMO”) are governed by Directive 2001/18 relating to the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment (1) and Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed (2). As such, genetically modified organisms may only be released into the environment or placed on the market only if consent has been given, subject to specific conditions and granted with a view to specified uses, after a scientific assessment of the risks of each Member State.

It is therefore a cumbersome process that raises questions as to its suitability, particularly concerning genomic techniques that appear to be, scientifically, close to conventional selection.

Of interest, in 2018, the European Court of Justice made an important ruling (3) that could have had a significant impact on the liberalisation of new genomic techniques. But unfortunately while it had the opportunity to totally exclude organisms of certain genomic techniques (i.e., mutagenesis) from the GMO legal framework, the Court took a narrower approach and ruled out that all organisms obtained by mutagenesis are to be considered, in fact, genetically modified organisms subject to the 2001 EU GMO directive, except: “organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record are excluded from the scope of that directive”.