The Precautionary principle: its misunderstandings and misuses in relation to “GMOs”

Responsible Learning About Risks Arising from Emerging Biotechnologies

Genetic engineering techniques (e.g., CRISPR-Cas) have led to an increase in biotechnological developments, possibly leading to uncertain risks. The European Union aims to anticipate these by embedding the Precautionary Principle in its regulation for risk management. This principle revolves around taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty and provides guidelines to take precautionary measures when dealing with important values such as health or environmental safety. However, when dealing with 'new' technologies, it can be hard for risk managers to estimate the societal or environmental consequences of a biotechnology that might arise once introduced or embedded in society due to that these sometimes do not comply with the established norms within risk assessment. When there is insufficient knowledge, stakeholders active in early developmental stages (e.g., researchers) could provide necessary knowledge by conducting research specifically devoted to what these unknown risks could entail. In theory, the Safe-by-Design (SbD) approach could enable such a controlled learning environment to gradually identify what these uncertain risks are, to which we refer as responsible learning. In this paper, we argue that three conditions need to be present to enable such an environment: (1) regulatory flexibility, (2) co-responsibility between researchers and regulators, and (3) openness towards all stakeholders. If one of these conditions would not be present, the SbD approach cannot be implemented to its fullest potential, thereby limiting an environment for responsible learning and possibly leaving current policy behind to anticipate uncertain risks.

Technological Risks (GMO, Gene Editing), What Is the Problem With Europe? A Broader Historical Perspective

Europe is often the center of origin of restrictions regarding technologies (e.g., biotechnologies: GMOs and, more recently, gene editing). The causes have already been analyzed in relation to European regulations, but not to its deeply embedded roots. This is what the present article attempts to do. It first depicts the broader historical background in Europe, the rise of a new ideology aiming to avoid repetition of the tragedies of the past, and the way these postmodern ideas have been transposed to science, with a focus on the issue of technological risk. In contrast to Europe, the United States has not enacted biotechnology-inhibiting laws, and the reasons for such a difference are discussed.

Genetically Modified Products, Perspectives and Challenges

It is a common ground that humans have always modified the genome of both plants and animals. This intrusive process that has existed for thousands of years, many times through mistakes and failures, was initially carried out through the crossing of organisms with desirable features. This was done with the aim of creating and producing new plants and animals that would benefit humans, that is , they would offer better quality food, more opportunities for people to move and transport products, greater returns to work, resistance to diseases, etc. However, creating genetically modified organisms does not proceed without conflicts. One part of the equation concerns objections made by disputants of genetically modified organisms to the manipulation of life, as opposed to defenders who argue that it is essentially an extension of traditional plant cultivation and animal breeding techniques. There are also conflicts regarding the risks to the environment and human health from using genetically modified organisms. Concerns about the risks to the environment and human health from genetically modified products have been the subject of much debate, which has led to the development of regulatory frameworks for the evaluation of genetically modified crops. However, the absence of a globally accepted framework has the effect of slowing down technological development with negative consequences for areas of the world that could benefit from new technologies. So, while genetically modified crops can provide maximum benefits in food safety and in adapting crops to existing climate change, the absence of reforms, as well as the lack of harmonization of the frameworks and regulations about the genetic modifications results in all those expected benefits of using genetically modified crops being suspended. However, it is obvious that the evolution of genetically modified products is not going to stop. For that reason, research on the impact of genetic modification on medical technologies, agricultural production, commodity prices, land use and on the environment in general, should therefore continue.

Elevated carotenoids in staple crops: The biosynthesis, challenges and measures for target delivery

Poverty eradication and global food security are among the targets of world leaders, most especially combating the scourge of hidden hunger. Provitamin A carotenoids cannot be synthesized de novo by human and so it must be taken as part of the diet. The deficiency of which is causing almost 6000 sights to be lost daily in most developing countries because of the monotonous starchy diets lacking substantial amount of carotenoid. Conventional breeding as well as genetic engineering have been used to increase the level of carotenoid in many staples including rice, potato, maize and cassava. While products from genetic engineering are still been subjected to strict regulatory measures preventing the delivery of the products to target consumers, some of the products from conventional breeding are already on the table of consumers. Interestingly, both technologies are crucial to tackling micronutrient deficiencies. This review discusses the role of carotenoid in human, the biosynthesis in plant and some of the staple crops that have been modified for increased carotenoid. Some measures expected of the leaders of the countries in need of these products for safe delivery to the target population after two decades is also highlighted.

A critical assessment of regulatory triggers for products of biotechnology: Product vs. process

Regulatory policies governing the safety of genetic engineering (rDNA) and the resulting products (GMOs) have been contentious and divisive, especially in agricultural applications of the technologies. These tensions led to vastly different approaches to safety regulation in different jurisdictions, even though the intent of regulations—to assure public and environmental safety—are common worldwide, and even though the international scientific communities agree on the basic principles of risk assessment and risk management. So great are the political divisions that jurisdictions cannot even agree on the appropriate triggers for regulatory capture, whether product or process. This paper reviews the historical policy and scientific implications of agricultural biotechnology regulatory approaches taken by the European Union, USA and Canada, using their respective statutes and regulations, and then critically assesses the scientific underpinnings of each.

New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology

In this review, current EU GMO regulations are subjected to a point-by point analysis to determine their suitability for agriculture in modern Europe. Our analysis concerns present GMO regulations as well as suggestions for possible new regulations for genome editing and New Breeding Techniques (for which no regulations presently exist). Firstly, the present GMO regulations stem from the early days of recombinant DNA and are not adapted to current scientific understanding on this subject. Scientific understanding of GMOs has changed and these regulations are now, not only unfit for their original purpose, but, the purpose itself is now no longer scientifically valid. Indeed, they defy scientific, economic, and even common, sense. A major EU regulatory preconception is that GM crops are basically different from their parent crops. Thus, the EU regulations are "process based" regulations that discriminate against GMOs simply because they are GMOs. However current scientific evidence shows a blending of classical crops and their GMO counterparts with no clear demarcation line between them. Canada has a "product based" approach and determines the safety of each new crop variety independently of the process used to obtain it. We advise that the EC re-writes it outdated regulations and moves toward such a product based approach.  Secondly, over the last few years new genomic editing techniques (sometimes called New Breeding Techniques) have evolved. These techniques are basically mutagenesis techniques that can generate genomic diversity and have vast potential for crop improvement. They are not GMO based techniques (any more than mutagenesis is a GMO technique), since in many cases no new DNA is introduced. Thus they cannot simply be lumped together with GMOs (as many anti-GMO NGOs would prefer). The EU currently has no regulations to cover these new techniques. In this review, we make suggestions as to how these new gene edited crops may be regulated. The EU is at a turning point where the wrong decision could destroy European agricultural competitively for decades to come.