Full text link https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?

Full-text link

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzIyNDA2NTI4Mg==mid=2655422620idx=1sn=15d2fbcad58f8cc1829d7844b45c505dchksm=f3a68af1c4d103e737fc5abd0d62bf93fa9d9606dfe5686ce2a493705317c6e6789cdbaa0424mpshare= 1scene=23srcid=1017OD4HkStWVhfvczl6a3gmshareer_sharetime=1571313114602shareer_shareid=abbd61c7dc0bac7241f81034416006d8#rd

Content excerpt

Europe's conservatism with genetic modification has led to its backwardness in product development and industry. Therefore, when gene editing and other new breeding technologies emerge, European scientists are enthusiastic about exploring in order to avoid supervision and win public support. Their ultimate goal is that Europe can shift from process supervision to product supervision, but in reality, it can only be hoped that some targeted gene editing products will not be included in GM supervision.

As early as 2011, the EU had a series of regulatory discussions on new breeding technologies, and also held an international seminar to make several classifications of targeted genome editing technologies and provide regulatory suggestions. However, the EU's rapid response did not reverse the situation. Over the past few years, even research on gene editing technology has been affected, let alone application.

"In Europe, when we introduced it, scientific researchers were not used to using this new technology, and were relatively conservative in Europe. In China, our plant genome editing research is still leading internationally and has been quickly and widely used." Qiu Jinlong said. Data shows that from 2007 to 2011, 35% of scientific publications of gene editing came from Europe, but were later surpassed by the United States. Some commentators believe that this may be due to the United States' more open and tolerant environment for technological innovation.

Gene editing

Gregory Conko et al. believe that compared with the EU, the United States has relatively relaxed attitude towards genetic engineering technology. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has always compared the food and feed obtained from recombinant DNA technology with the products obtained from traditional breeding technology, and concentratedly evaluated its products, and considered the equivalence, toxicity, allergicity, anti-nutrition and other aspects of its components through informal consultation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency focuses on insect-resistant properties and focuses on the impact of "plant insecticides" - that is, the environmental impact of expressed insect-resistant proteins. As the framework-leading regulatory body, the US Department of Agriculture invented the term Plant pest, focusing on whether plant pathogens are used in the creation of genetically engineered crops. For emerging plant editing technologies, the White House has ordered the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration to update its coordination framework for biotech regulation to respond to changes in new technologies while gathering public opinions widely.

Traditional breeding can no longer meet the growing food demand and environmental challenges such as climate change. If hybrid breeding is still discovered after discovering natural mutations, and even the mutagenesis breeding developed 60 years ago, crop improvement will not be sustainable. "For traditional hybrid breeding, if you are lucky enough to find a disease-resistant plant, but generally its yield is not high, it needs to hybridize with those with high yields. Assuming that it can hybridize, it will have to undergo multiple generations of optimized separation, which generally takes at least ten years." Qiu Jinlong said.

As a supplement to traditional technology, genetically modified technology developed in the 1990s has created a large number of varieties that are resistant to insects, disease, herbicides, and rich in certain nutrients. It has a history of commercial cultivation for 23 years. According to data released by the International Organization for Application of Agricultural Biotechnology (ISAAA), in 2016, the planting area of ​​genetically modified crops in 26 countries worldwide exceeded 180 million hectares, while in the United States, more than 90% of soybeans and corn grown in the United States contain one or more genetically modified products, making them resistant to insects or herbicides.

However, a 2012 article by European scientist Maria Lusser et al. in Nature Biotechnology pointed out that the high costs (US$35 million per GM event) and time-consuming (which takes 5.5 years to complete) caused by the unfavorable regulatory environment, which makes only some high-profit crops available for large-scale cultivation, such as cotton , soybeans and corn; some unpopular crops such as vegetables and garden varieties are ignored.

" I think if the regulations on gene editing are loose enough and large companies do not need to do it, it is very conducive to the innovation of small companies in China. We have written materials for the Academy of Sciences and used a very vulgar term that it can achieve overtaking in China's breeding industry; there are more than 2,000 seed companies in China, most of which are small companies and cannot compete with foreign multinational companies." Qiu Jinlong told Intellectuals. Whether

can establish a scientific-oriented and product-based management system has been placed before governments. In the field of plant breeding, we are standing at a crossroads of change, perhaps a double paradigm conversion : on the one hand, plant editing technology with great potential is revolutionizing the industry; on the other hand, process-based regulatory strategies are no longer suitable.

Source: Intellectual

Author: Di Lihui