In a shift away from GMOS, aka genetically modified organisms, important research is continuing in gene editing, sometimes referred to as “the next big thing in agriculture.” The important difference between the two is that in the case of gene editing, no foreign DNA is inserted into a plant, animal… Continue Reading Science & Research, gene editing, GMO, research Food Safety News
In a shift away from GMOS, aka genetically modified organisms, important research is continuing in gene editing, sometimes referred to as “the next big thing in agriculture.”
The important difference between the two is that in the case of gene editing, no foreign DNA is inserted into a plant, animal or microorganism to achieve improvements in size, productivity, disease and insect resistance and in some cases even drought resistance.
In contrast, in the case of GMOs, foreign DNA from one organism is injected into a plant or animal to achieve improvements of one kind or another. This has some people uneasy, or even downright hostile, toward GMOs. Frankenfoods is what some people call them.
One example of a GMO is genetically modified salmon. In that case, the equivalent of a genetic on-off switch from an ocean pout, was introduced into the genetic structure of a salmon. This modification gives the salmon a year-round appetite enabling it to reach market size faster.
In other words, these quick-growing larger fish can fetch better prices in the marketplace, as long at the marketplace accepts them.
While the Food and Drug Administration says that GMO foods are carefully studied before they are sold to the public to ensure they are as safe as the foods consumers currently eat and that they don’t affect them any differently than non-GMO foods, some foreign markets, the EU, and especially France, as well as many U.S. consumers, see things differently. So differently that they’re banned in some countries and voluntarily labeled as such in the United States.
Now enter genetic editing, which Canadian scientist Santosh Kumar hails as the future of agricultural crop research. In a recent presentation for the Brandon Chamber of Commerce, he explained that current research focuses on breeding crops that are more productive without the use of foreign DNA. This, he said, improves the quality of crops, and is more acceptable in the global market than GMO crops.
Often called CRISPR, gene editing allows researchers to disable a gene or add one for a desirable trait by modifying a gene in a specific place in a genome. Think of a pair of scissors; only in this case it’s enzymes that do the work instead. The enzymes allow researchers to precisely insert or delete genes in an animal or plant’s DNA, intending to improve its health, productivity, and nutritional benefits.
Kumar said that to ensure that Canada retains its strong position in the agriculture market in the future, researchers are breeding better crops, while staying away from genetically modifying them. A big reason for this is that Canada needs to be able to sell what it grows.
The GMO label can turn some countries away, he said.
In contrast, crop bioengineering research that incorporates gene editing, genomics and phenomics are preferred.
Important to keep in mind is that gene editing works only within a species’ own DNA. The goal is to bring about desired changes that in the past would only happen with traditional breeding practices. For centuries, farmers have relied on selective breeding, which involves breeding plants and animals with desirable traits to others without those traits to improve food production and quality. It obviously takes a lot of hit-and-miss to achieve this goal, not to mention a lot of time — generations of time sometimes. That’s why gene-editing is often called “a high-tech form of selective breeding.”
Washington State University researcher Lindsey du Toit, who focuses on the biology and management of diseases affecting small-seeded vegetable seed crops grown in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, agrees with Kumar that crops have to meet the needs of the market.
“It all depends on what the market accepts,” she said.
With this in mind, Kumar said his work at the Brandon Research and Development Centre is focused on non-GMO research methods that still improve crops. Wheat and barley are examples of food grains the centre is working on.
To bolster the future of Canada’s foodgrain industry, scientists breed varieties that are better adapted to overcome challenges, such as crop diseases that are more prevalent in prairies, where most wheat is grown. These varieties also have better resistance to weather conditions like drought.
He told the group that this process results in an increase in yields at harvest time, disease-resistant breeds, and a higher quality of the end product. Speaking of Canada’s work in the field so far, Kumar said the country’s wheat is considered “premium” in the global market. “Even the Americans say it’s really good.”
Besides which, he said that the GMO label can turn some countries away, which is why gene editing is preferred.
Some researchers in the EU involved in GMO studies have even quit and gone on to other endeavors. Widespread protests against GMOs and even paint splashed on the cars of GMO researchers are examples of the resistance against GMOs.
“In this context of high opposition, a change of attitude towards GMOs seems rather difficult to achieve in the EU, notably in France,” says a report on GMOs.
What about meat?
In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized allowing gene-edited pigs into the human food chain.
As a starter, German-style sausages, made from five 2-year-old genetically edited pigs, which were cooked up at Washington State University, were a test case. Jon Oatley, a professor in the college’s School of Molecular Biosciences, said he went through the FDA food-use authorization process for the pigs to show that food made from the animals using a CRISPR application is safe to eat.
For Oatley and his fellow researchers, the overall goal is to develop desirable traits for improved food production and meat quality, which will help feed the planet’s growing population. This, in turn, is an important goal for boosting protein sources in developing nations.
But the research goes beyond pigs. Oatley said researchers are also working cattle, goats, and sheep, all of which are important food-producing animals.
The FDA authorization is investigational and limited to the pigs in Oatley’s research.
“But in the future, we will be seeking food-use authorization for the other species as well,” he said.
Tracey Forfa, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Science, tied her agency’s role with its need “to keep our regulatory approach current with the evolution of science.”
“We recognize that innovations in animal biotechnology offer tremendous opportunities for advancing human and animal health,” she said.
“We’re just driving to the ballpark,” said John Dombrosky, CEO of Ag Tec Accelerator in an interview with Bloomberg News. “Gene editing will be free to do tremendous things across the ag continuum, and the promise is just gigantic. We’ll be able to fine-tune food for amazing health and nutrition benefits.”
Food safety?
As for food safety, WSU researcher Oatley said there is no concern about food safety from the CRISPR edits that were made.
“The DNA changes were not in any part of the genome that would make the animals more susceptible to infectious disease compared to normal non-edited pigs,” he said. “The USDA FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) inspected the animals prior to processing and the carcass after processing using the standards applied to all processed livestock and found no abnormalities.”
Oatley also confirmed that as long as standard food-safety practices are used in raising, slaughtering, packaging, and cooking the meat, the pork will be free of foodborne pathogens.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)
