Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Apr 25;12(9):1764.
doi: 10.3390/plants12091764.

Recommendations for the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects of Genome-Editing Applications in Plants in the EU

Affiliations
Review

Recommendations for the Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects of Genome-Editing Applications in Plants in the EU

Michael F Eckerstorfer et al. Plants (Basel). .

Abstract

The current initiative of the European Commission (EC) concerning plants produced using certain new genomic techniques, in particular, targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis, underlines that a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment needs to be maintained when using such applications. The current EU biosafety regulation framework ensures a high level of protection with a mandatory environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) products prior to the authorization of individual GMOs for environmental release or marketing. However, the guidance available from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for conducting such an ERA is not specific enough regarding the techniques under discussion and needs to be further developed to support the policy goals towards ERA, i.e., a case-by-case assessment approach proportionate to the respective risks, currently put forward by the EC. This review identifies important elements for the case-by-case approach for the ERA that need to be taken into account in the framework for a risk-oriented regulatory approach. We also discuss that the comparison of genome-edited plants with plants developed using conventional breeding methods should be conducted at the level of a scientific case-by-case assessment of individual applications rather than at a general, technology-based level. Our considerations aim to support the development of further specific guidance for the ERA of genome-edited plants.

Keywords: CRISPR/Cas; GMO; biosafety regulation; environmental risk assessment; genome-editing; new genomic techniques; plant modification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors of this article are members of the interest group on risk assessment and monitoring of GMOs (IG GMO). The IG GMO is jointly organized by the European Nature Conservation Agency Heads Network (ENCA) and the Network of the Heads of Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) and chaired by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN/BAFU). A draft of this publication was discussed in the IG GMO. However, the authors contributed to the publication in their personal capacity and their views do not necessarily represent the positions of their respective national governments. More information on the IG GMO can be found here: Genetically Modified Organisms (encanetwork.eu), accessed on 19 April 2023.

References

    1. European Commission. Joint Research Centre . New Genomic Techniques: State of the Art Review. Publications Office of the European Union; Luxembourg: 2021.
    1. Wang J.Y., Doudna J.A. CRISPR technology: A decade of genome editing is only the beginning. Science. 2023;379:eadd8643. doi: 10.1126/science.add8643. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Turnbull C., Lillemo M., Hvoslef-Eide T.A.K. Global Regulation of Genetically Modified Crops Amid the Gene Edited Crop Boom—A Review. Front. Plant Sci. 2021;12:630396. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.630396. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eckerstorfer M.F., Engelhard M., Heissenberger A., Simon S., Teichmann H. Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019;7:26. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00026. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Friedrichs S., Takasu Y., Kearns P., Dagallier B., Oshima R., Schofield J., Moreddu C. An overview of regulatory approaches to genome editing in agriculture. Biotechnol. Res. Innov. 2019;3:208–220. doi: 10.1016/j.biori.2019.07.001. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources