Some scientists believe current regulations on agricultural gene editing are too restrictive. However, a new paper from the University of Adelaide highlights the need for clear, well-defined rules to ensure emerging technologies are applied safely and ethically.
Published in The Plant Journal, the focused review — authored by Dr. Emily Buddle, Michail Ivanov, and Professor Rachel Ankeny — argues that regulation is essential not only for safety, but also for fostering public engagement and trust in gene-editing innovation.
“Regulatory decisions are not just about scientific facts or economic benefits. They always involve value judgements, especially concerning safety, risk and societal benefits,” Buddle explains.
“Plant scientists need to engage with diverse groups of people early and often throughout the innovation process to understand their concerns about new technologies. This engagement is a mutual learning process, not just a formality, as no single group has the expertise and capacity to shape regulation in isolation.”
In a press release, Buddle notes that while forms of gene-editing can make the same changes that could happen naturally in agriculture — a concept known as “scientific equivalency” — this does not translate to public acceptance.
“What truly matters to the public is how the gene technology will be applied and what its perceived benefits are, rather than just whether it is gene edited or genetically modified,” she says.
“For example, our previous research has shown that people might be more accepting of gene editing that improves the crop’s tolerance to drought rather than altering the nutritional qualities of the grain.”
Gene editing is a rapidly advancing tool in agriculture, offering new ways to help crops cope with environmental challenges like drought and high salinity. Although no gene-edited crops are currently in commercial production in Australia, the rise of these new breeding techniques has reignited global debate over how such technologies should be regulated.
Regulation encompasses the laws, policies, licences, and guidelines that govern the use of gene technologies — rules that carry penalties when breached. Globally, there is little alignment on how gene editing is regulated, with approaches varying significantly from country to country.
In Australia, oversight of gene technologies — including both genetically modified and gene-edited crops — is handled by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). Originally, under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Commonwealth), gene-edited crops were regulated the same way as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
However, changes introduced in 2019 excluded certain techniques, such as SDN-1 (site-directed nuclease 1), from regulation under the Act. These techniques involve precise, small-scale edits to DNA without introducing foreign genes — changes considered comparable to those that could arise naturally or through conventional breeding.
Ivanov notes that the review questions some widely held criticisms within the field of crop science.
“In our research experience, we often hear scientists working in agricultural genomics talk about regulation as problematic, emphasising that regulation is a ‘bottleneck’ or a ‘hurdle’ that limits research and innovation in crop sciences,” Ivanov says.
“However, we argue that calling regulation a ‘bottleneck’ depends on your perspective and what your goals are.
“We contend that regulation is actually an important part of the innovation process as it allows regulators and diverse publics to get involved in the research and assess whether a new technology is truly needed, desirable and beneficial outside of the lab or field.
“Instead of being a bottleneck, regulation can be seen as a filter as it helps remove elements of science and innovation that could cause problems or harms to society or the environment, making sure that new technologies align with societal expectations and values before they are widely used.”
The post Why Regulations in Plant Gene Editing are a Must appeared first on Seed World.