The European Parliament debates on Tuesday a relaxation of the regulations surrounding NGT, new genetically modified organisms which would, according to their supporters, make it possible to strengthen European agriculture. Their detractors argue that the risks they represent for health and the environment are poorly assessed.
Corn more resistant to drought, wheat low in gluten, tomatoes resistant to certain diseases… Will these plants, whose genome has been modified, soon be able to grow in French European fields? The European Parliament must decide, from Tuesday February 6, on the regulations surrounding NGT, seeds genetically modified using new scientific techniques. “New GMOs”, some denounce. A solution for the future to adapt to climate change and remain competitive on the international market, assure others.
Developed in the early 2001s, the first genetically modified organisms (GMOs) involved modifying the characteristics of a plant by transferring the genes of another species to it in the laboratory – transgenesis, in scientific language. A process which has always raised serious concerns, both regarding the ethical consequences and the impact on consumer health and biodiversity. With a few exceptions, their use and marketing are prohibited in the EU.
A GMO, or not ?
NGT, or “new genomic techniques”, have emerged in recent years thanks to CrispR technology, “molecular scissors” which earned the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to the Frenchwoman Emmanuelle Charpentier and the American Jennifer Doudna in 2020, who allow precise modification of a DNA sequence.
As with traditional GMOs, it involves genetically modifying a species, but without involving another this time: CrispR will make it possible to remove the specific gene from a plant, to attach another or to artificially transfer genes between organisms of the same species. In this way it will be possible to activate or otherwise inhibit some of its characteristics.
See alsoNBTs, GMOs?
The scope of application to the agricultural world of this technology seems immense: a plant could, in theory, remain edible for longer, have more taste, but above all become more resistant to climatic hazards or diseases and thus require fewer phytosanitary products. Major issues at a time when climate change is hitting the sector hard and making the ecological transition more and more urgent.
“For years now, we have been favoring varieties of plants that are more resistant to climatic hazards, diseases or lack of water through plant selection and we are crossing species to try to obtain specific characteristics,” recalls Rémi Bastien, vice-president of the French Seed Manufacturers Union. “This process is the same, except that, when traditional plant selection is random and takes a long time, these technologies will allow us to obtain what we are looking for much more quickly and in a much more precise way,” welcomes he.
For example, “a new pathogen affecting tomatoes emerged in the Middle East in 2016. We have only just managed to bring a variety to the market that is resistant to it. The process took eight years. NGT would have helped speed up things,” he continues.
For Jérôme Enjalbert, geneticist and research director at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE), “these are still GMOs”. “We must not play with words. From the moment we rewrite part of the DNA sequence of an organism voluntarily, in the laboratory, and a human carries out targeted manipulation on the genome, it is a GMO .”
“Don’t miss the turn”
Since 2018, NGTs have been considered by the EU as GMOs and subject to the same regulations. But while the latter have since been authorized in the United States, in several countries in Latin America and in Asia, and hundreds of projects are under development around the world, the European Commission has decided to bring the subject back to the table. the table in July.
It now proposes to distinguish two categories of NGT. The first group would be made up of plants that have undergone fewer than twenty genetic modifications, all likely to occur naturally or through traditional plant breeding. Deemed to have no negative impact on health and the environment, they would escape the constraints that weigh on GMOs and would simply be registered in a public database. Conversely, the other NGTs, category 2, would be considered GMOs with drastic legislation. Finally, no product from NGT could be labeled “organic”.
“This approach would give the EU a regulatory framework close to what already exists in these countries and would allow us not to miss the shift on the international market,” welcomes Rémi Bastien. “We are still working on new technologies, but projects are multiplying and it is necessary that we do not miss the train. Our competitiveness is at stake.”
Lack of data and traceability
When discussions resumed in Brussels, Jérôme Enjalbert, however, pointed out the many limits and questions that remained. “CrispR are molecular scissors and we are making increasingly clean modifications with them. Despite everything, it remains a new technology and there are off-target effects that we do not fully control,” he says.
An observation shared by the French health agency Anses, in a report published in December: “These techniques can lead to modifications in the biological functions of plants (not taken into account). We cannot rule out that they could induce risks for health and the environment”, we can read.
Furthermore, Jérôme Enjalbert fears that these NGTs will lead to a standardization of agriculture. “The GMO risk also means spreading edited varieties which crush cultivated diversity and standardize agricultural landscapes. However, this is essential in the long term (to maintain a diversity of species). Especially since we know that, in the living world, parasites adapt. A plant that is resistant today may no longer be so tomorrow.”
A fear overcome by Rémi Bastien: “These processes amount to the same as natural plant selection, there is no reason why the plants resulting from them behave differently. And diversity is at the heart of our profession. For us, it will be about continuing to offer varieties that adapt to local realities.”
Another fear: the absence of traceability. Modified seeds risk contaminating other neighboring crops. However, it is impossible at this stage to know if a plant comes from an NGT or if it has been contaminated, confirms Jérôme Enjalbert. “Finally, from a purely economic point of view, it is crucial to ensure that these seeds are not confiscated by a few multinationals at the expense of breeders and small growers,” the specialist finishes listing.
Precautionary principle
Faced with all these questions, Jérôme Enjalbert calls for the precautionary principle to be upheld. “These technologies could be good tools. Provided that caution prevails. Before extending the use of NGT, we should experiment with a few species and carry out real impact studies to measure the agroecological benefit and all the consequences health and environmental,” he concludes.
Faced with the debate, the countries of the European Union appear divided. Around fifteen states, including France, see the NGT as an “important tool” for adapting to climate change, but Germany, Austria and even the countries of Eastern Europe are ringing the bell. alarm, highlighting the concerns raised by these new technologies.