Scientists, Nobel Laureates Urge EU To Embrace Benefits Of New Genomic Techniques To Make Crops Resilient

Nobel laureates and scientists called on the European Union to embrace the benefits of new genomic techniques (NGT).

In an open letter, the 34 Nobel Prize winners urged lawmakers to ease tight genetic modification regulations in order to embrace new techniques that target individual genes and modify their codes.

They claimed that technology has the potential to make crops more disease-resistant and more likely to withstand extreme weather events, which are becoming more destructive as the world warms.

According to the scientists, traditional crop breeding processes that take years or decades to complete are inefficient.

WePlanet, an environmental group that advocates for technologies such as nuclear power, gene editing, and cellular agriculture, as well as rewilding the majority of Europe, organized the letter.

The letter's more than 1,000 signatories include leading biologists and geneticists, including the scientists who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the Crispr "genetic scissors" at the center of the debate, as well as celebrity authors such as psychologist Steven Pinker and philosopher Peter Singer.

The letter also said the NGTs have enormous potential for sustainable agriculture, improved food security, and new medicinal solutions. This potential also includes new jobs and increased economic success.

According to a recent analysis, not allowing NGTs might cost the European economy 300 billion euros per year in 'benefits foregone' across numerous sectors. This is the cost of rejecting scientific advancement.

"We ask you to consider the unequivocable body of scientific evidence supporting NGTs, and make decisions that align with the European Union's and its citizens' best interests," the letter said.

They added that the support for NGTs will not only promote innovation but will also establish the EU as a global leader in responsible and evidence-based policymaking.

Vote On The Law

Environmental groups have strongly opposed initiatives to modify the genetic code of plants and other species, citing concerns about their safety and the risk of unforeseen effects.

Proponents of the technologies, particularly highly focused ones, have stated that such hazards are insignificant in relation to the recognized concerns of biodiversity loss, climate change, and starvation.

The European Food Safety Authority discovered no new risks associated with targeted gene editing in plants as compared to standard breeding methods.

However, in 2018, the European Court of Justice declared that any plants created by modifying genes, whether targeted or not, are genetically modified organisms subject to the EU's GMO regulations.

It stated that the hazards to the environment and human health couldn't be determined with certainty.

The European Commission has acknowledged that plants created using new methods of gene editing are GMOs, but it wants to exempt them from existing safety regulations, which champions of the technology argue are antiquated and restrictive.

The parliament's environment committee will vote on the measure on Wednesday.

A previous open letter signed by a smaller group of scientists in December, including molecular biologists and geneticists, many of whom work for nonprofit organizations, argued that the commission's proposal should be "rejected or extensively revised" because environmental and human health safety cannot be ensured.

They advocated for a mandated risk assessment of all gene-edited plants on an individual basis.