Gene Editing vs GMO - New regulations or fewer regulations?

Plant and animal selection have been used for centuries to identify varieties or breeds that were more productive or better suited for specific production conditions. NGOs, such as the WWF, consider plant genetics has a necessity to feed a growing population on a planet with bounded resources. Climate change, characterized by extreme wheater conditions, required new varieties that are, for example, adapted to drought conditions. While there is a future demand for new varieties, the consumers have often been watchful about the technologies involved in the production of new varieties and suspicious about bioengineering technologies, such as those involved in GMOs. In France, consumers have been reluctant to buy GMO products and regulators have often followed the consumers. Since 1999, there is an EU moratorium about GMO production and the importation of GMOs. In the USA, the GMO issue is more about consumer information. 

During the last two decades (From 1987 to 2019), a CRISPR-Cas9 has emerged as new gene-editing technology. Gene editing produce and GMOs are different. Genes from other organisms are incorporated in many GMOs, such as Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops (e.g., cotton, tobacco, corn, potato). Bt produces a crystal toxin resistant to certain insect pests. Gene editing mostly affects existing genes in a plant variety. CRISPR can knockout a gene, that is the gene is made inoperative. It can Knock-in a gene, which is to repair it. CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) affects the gene expression (like the Knockout process) but not the gene itself. Similarly, CRISPR activation (CRISPRa) activates the gene without affecting the gene itself. The video from Nature provides explanations about CRISPR technologies. 

Summarizing: GMO and CRISPR differ. While bioengineering GMO add an exogenous gene into a plant or an animal, gene editing affects only the genome of a plant or an animal.

Should gene-edited new food products be regulated? The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced that it does not plan to place additional regulations on gene-edited plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding prior to commercialization. However, the FDA is quite reluctant to adopt the same position as the USDA for the Animal. Opponents to the FDA claim the agency is afraid to face litigation from anti-GMO groups.

While the controversy grows about the risks of gene-edited plant or animal, it seems that the consumer opinion is not taken into consideration. Therefore, it appears that little has been learned from GMO recent history/controversy including the lack of regulations about labeling. The question naturally arises: If GMOs / Gene-edited products are really safe, why do food companies keep hiding them from the consumers. 

However, some companies like Zbiotics proudly announce that their product is bioengineered. 

ZBiotics™ is the world’s first genetically engineered probiotic to break down a toxic byproduct of alcohol called acetaldehyde. The formula? Three years of research and development, plus a dash of water and natural flavor. Most commonly acetaldehyde is associated with the rough feelings you get the day after drinking.

For more about genetics visit the Genetic Literacy Project.