4.7 Review

Expert opinions on the regulation of plant genome editing

Journal

PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 1104-1109

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pbi.13597

Keywords

CRISPR; food security; innovation; new breeding techniques; risk; uncertainty

Funding

  1. Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF) grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Global food security is influenced by various factors, with genome editing playing an important role in agricultural research. The potential and market growth of new breeding techniques like genome editing face challenges, mainly due to international regulatory, ethical, and societal constraints.
Global food security is largely affected by factors such as environmental (e.g. drought, flooding), social (e.g. gender inequality), socio-economic (e.g. overpopulation, poverty) and health (e.g. diseases). In response, extensive public and private investment in agricultural research has focused on increasing yields of staple food crops and developing new traits for crop improvement. New breeding techniques pioneered by genome editing have gained substantial traction within the last decade, revolutionizing the plant breeding field. Both industry and academia have been investing and working to optimize the potentials of gene editing and to bring derived crops to market. The spectrum of cutting-edge genome editing tools along with their technical differences has led to a growing international regulatory, ethical and societal divide. This article is a summary of a multi-year survey project exploring how experts view the risks of new breeding techniques, including genome editing and their related regulatory requirements. Surveyed experts opine that emerging biotechnologies offer great promise to address social and climate challenges, yet they admit that the market growth of genome-edited crops will be limited by an ambiguous regulatory environment shaped by societal uncertainty.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available