Questions arise about "new" methods for genetically altering certain crops (or NBT). A major consultation has been launched by the European Commission until July to determine what to do about them. Or, if possible, less strict framing. The question will remain until a decision is made in 2023.
These NBTs are often referred to as "new genetic selection techniques" or "new breeding culture". They are very similar to the natural world. Or, even the practice of transplantation which we have done since the dawning of time.
In 2011, the European Union Joint Research Centre published the first mention of "NBT".
This technique has revolutionized the world since 2012, thanks in part to the CRISPR-Cas9 genetic scissors. It was developed by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier in France. Their innovation won them the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020.
NBTs allow for the modification of a living organism's genome very precisely and easily, without the introduction of a foreign gene (transgene), which is not possible with "classic" GMOs.
It is much easier, quicker, and more affordable than making GMOs in agronomic research. Researchers will be seduced by seed companies.
This is done by "improving" the genetic makeup of crops and animals. It allows for more productive species, better resistance to parasites, weather variations, etc. Specialists promise that this will make it easier to produce more sustainable species.
Better: NBTs could also enhance the nutritional and taste qualities of products by, for instance, restoring the original flavor to tomatoes.
It is a promise to preserve a productive agriculture without any harmful effects.
European justice has deemed NBTs to be "classic" GMOs for the moment. Environmental groups warn of the danger that they will appear on shelves... but without being able identify them.
Although the question is more ethically and environmentally related than that of health, they believe that it should not be settled. The Court of Justice of the EU ruled that GMOs were indeed the answer in 2018. These products needed to be analyzed, traced and labeled.
The European Commission launched a major consultation to settle the issue. All EU citizens are welcome to participate. The objective is to revise the regulations with a decision expected by 2023.
Advocates of NBT claim that genome editing is minimal. It involves reproducing in the lab what nature does sometimes. It can lead to modifications that are nearly impossible to detect even by looking at the genome, which is not unlike what happens when GMOs are produced.
This is what causes NBT proponents to refuse to label them as "GMO "..." and what leads to opponents demanding traceability. They believe that without traceability, it is impossible for anyone to determine if the product they are purchasing and, afortiori, ingesting has been subjected to genetic intervention in a laboratory.
The question is less symbolic for seed companies and other players in agri-food industries, and it is undoubtedly more costly: to maintain the GMO classification, lengthy evaluation work must be done in order to verify the safety of the products. There are also many steps to traceability, labeling and so on.
The European Parliament is currently divided. France and other member states support the agro-industry lobby, pushing for NBT foods not to be considered GMOs.
At the moment, they are not allowed in France or the European Union. They are currently subject to a moratorium, pending regulatory clarification.
A tomato that is supposed to benefit hypertension sufferers has been on the market in Japan since 2021.
A fungus that is resistant to browning (during oxygenation) has been in the United States for six years. It also produces a better-for-you oil.
Not yet marketable are potatoes with less acrylamide, which can decompose into a carcinogenic compound while cooking. Or tomatoes with tastier tomato skins and cereals that are more resistant against herbicides.
