In July 2023, the European Commission has launched a process to replace its 2001 directive on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In an open letter of June 2023, the President of the ÖAW has taken a public stance in favour of relaxing the existing rules.
Some history is in order. Whereas genetic techniques available in 2001 consisted mainly in modifying the genome by introducing genes from other organisms (transgenesis), later techniques made it possible to induce mutations directly into the genome, by chemical manipulations or, more recently, gene editing (directed mutagenesis) via CRISPR-Cas. Proponents of these new genetic techniques (NGT) claim that they are « nature-based », since they just accelerate and direct a natural process, so that their products should be exempt from the strict regulation on GMOs.
The argument was made and went all the way to the Court of Justice of the European Union, who rejected it in July 20181. The Court states explicitly that organisms created by the NGTs which have appeared since 2001 (including CRISPR-Cas) are in fact GMOs and carry the same risks to human health and to the environment. The Court has restated its opinion in February 2023, and it is to circumvent this decision that the European Commission has decided to discard the 2001 directive and proposes a new one.
Under the new directive proposal of the European Commission, any plant obtained by genetic engineering, and which up to now was considered a GMO, will be « considered as equivalent to conventional plants if it differs from the parental/receptor plant by at most 20 genetic modifications ». Since the wording « genetic modification » is broad enough to cover major changes, this means that in effect, regulation disappears and genetic engineering is given a free rein.
There will be four types of consequenes :
1. Consequences for feeding the world. The replacement of natural seed populations, which are genetically diverse, by genetically modified seeds, which are clones of each other and licensed to private companies create a double risk. On the one hand, this makes the human food system vulnerable, since the biodiversity of crops is reduced, and there is no fallback option if existing varieties are subject to epidemics or climate changes, or simply do not perform as expected. On the other, it puts it into the hands of a few large companies, which may set their financial profitability ahead of the needs of human populations, particularly in poor countries.
2. Consequences on society and the economy. Genetically modified plants are created by large companies, such as Bayer or Corteva, which licence them and extract user fees. They cannot be resown, so that users have to buy them every year, creating a rent for the company and in effect privatising a natural process. In addition, they spread naturally to neighbouring crops, so that even non-users will eventually be press-ganged into the system. Alternative ways to improve yields and soils, such as agroforestery, will be driven out of business, thereby closing the door to the most promising ways to feed the world and fight climate change
3. Consequences on the environment. At the present time, genetical engineering is not directed towards improving plants, but towards facilitating industrial processes which modify the environment : 95 % of genetically modified plants on the market either are built to excrete specific toxins (Bt crops) or to be resistant to certain herbicides (Roundup Ready crops). The effect on the environment is well documented : the targeted insects or weeds develop resistance, which leads to creating new pesticides, and non-targeted populations, such as bees and other pollinisators, are affected as well. There is little reason to think that this will change towards making plants which have higher yields or are more resistant to heat and drought. In fact, the various functions of a plant are in equilibrium with each other, and improving one will come at the expense of the other. You cannot build a car which is at the same time faster, more roomy and using less gas than existing ones.
4. Consequences on human health. We are what we eat. The ADN and ARN introduce in plants can find its way into grazing animals and humans. This is of enough concern overseas for the US Chamber of Representatives to have voted for an amendment prohibiting federal funding for research into « transgenic edible vaccines », which are supposed to vaccinate people simply by eating genetically modified plants.
The European Commission proposes no labelling nor traceability mechanism for plants obtained by NGTs. This amounts to preventing the European consumer of choosing his own foods, and shielding major companies from the largely unknown consequences of their action on the environment and on human health. By coming out in support of such a major change in our food supply, without due consideration of the risks involved, some of which are attested by countless scientific studies, while others are still unknown, the ÖAW would shoulder a major responsibility.
1https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-07/cp180111fr.pdf