GMOs

How the Purple Tomato is Changing Consumer Perception of GMOs

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 17:47:36 GMT

Eating the rainbow has become easier and more flavorful in recent years, especially when it comes to anthocyanins — the purple pigment that’s in blueberries, blackberries, red grape skins, eggplant and now — thanks to genetic modification — the purple tomato.

Nathan Pumplin is CEO of Norfolk Healthy Produce, the company behind the Empress Purple Tomato, a bioengineered tomato made by adding two genes from snapdragons. These tomatoes are a rich source of antioxidants because the purple pigments are in the whole tomato, not just the skin.

“They’re really good for people’s health, and most of us don’t eat nearly enough anthocyanins,” Pumplin says.

But the trained molecular biologist, who has worked for nearly 20 years in R&D and commercializing new types of plants that solve problems, says bringing a GMO purple tomato to market has not been without challenges.

“The first GMOs were really marketed to farmers, and the innovative farmers said: ‘OK, there’s these new GMO crops, do I want to use them?’ And they very quickly saw: ‘Wow, this solves a lot of problems for me. Yes, I want to adopt them,’” he says. “What was forgotten was that it was food being produced and sold to consumers, and consumers never had an opportunity to engage with GMOs in the food system.”

“There were people who felt the food supply was playing God in the lab by adding DNA to create new varieties, and no one had asked them if they wanted to opt in or opt out,” Pumplin continues. “I think a lot of people felt like they were treated like guinea pigs. Their opinions and their values weren’t respected when those first crops launched. And that’s a huge problem.”

Adding to the challenge is the reality that most consumers don’t know what a GMO is, making education critical to driving demand for the purple tomato.

The Empress Purple Tomato is a stunner in a variety of dishes from appetizers to salads.

(Photo courtesy of Norfolk Healthy Produce)

“What’s really gratifying is that we find, generally, 80% to 90% of people in the U.S. want this product,” Pumplin says. “They know it’s a GMO, and they get a chance to ask questions like: ‘Well, don’t all GMOs have pesticides?’ And we can say: ‘No, there’s no pesticides on these. And they have the opportunity to ask a lot of questions, and then the vast majority of people say, ‘OK, I really want this.’”

While Pumplin says backlash against GMOs halted innovation and new product development for years, now he sees things coming full circle. And as consumers are hungry for the new, the flavorful and the nutritious, the fresh produce industry has innovated with the help of GMOs in some exciting ways.

“Now we have some breakthrough products, and so I’m really proud to say, our purple tomato — which is marketed in grocery stores right now under the Empress brand — is doing extremely well,” he says. “We also have the Pinkglow pineapple from Del Monte on the market. We have the Arctic Apple, which is growing and doing very well in a lot of segments.”

“I think we’re on the brink of a widespread recognition within the industry that this is something that consumers are no longer afraid of,” he adds. “They simply want a better product. They want something they can afford. They want something that their kids will eat. They want something that’s nutritious, that’s beautiful, that tastes good, all of that.”

But while today’s consumer might be ready for the better, purple tomato, Pumplin says it’s the produce industry that needs to catch up on GMOs.

“There’s just simply so little fear among the broad consumer base right now, and also such a desire for new and better products,” he says. “A big part of my messaging is to try to make sure that folks in the produce industry, these key decision-makers, understand where their consumers are.

“Because I think that’s actually the biggest gap right now. Consumers have moved on, and a lot of the decision-makers in the industry, haven’t caught up to where the consumers are,” he says. “They think the consumers are still 10 years ago, afraid of GMOs, and that’s not true anymore.”

Companies Race to Bring More Hybrid Wheat to the U.S.

Wed, 20 Nov 2024 18:12:28 GMT

Success has been an elusive achievement for technology providers wanting to develop hybrid non-GMO wheat products for U.S. farmers.

Corteva is the latest company to announce its intention to develop proprietary non-GMO hybrid technology. It plans to launch hybrid hard red winter (HRW) wheat as early as 2027 in North America, adding to its portfolio over time, the company shared in a recent press release.

Corteva says its hybrid HRW wheat technology will:

1. Increase farmers’ yield potential by 10% while using the same amount of land and resources, providing significant promise for both farmers and global food security. (Based on internal yield trial testing; two years of testing on six to 10 locations per year in each of the market classes; and hard red winter testing in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado and Oklahoma.)

2. Be more resistant to drought. Research trials show Corteva’s hybrid wheat can yield roughly 20% higher than elite varieties in water-stressed environments, which would help farmers better adapt to the impacts of a changing climate. (Based on internal yield trial testing; two years of testing on six to 10 locations per year in each of the market classes; and hard red winter testing in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado and Oklahoma.)

3. Accelerate the speed to market of new elite germplasm by increasing the scale of parent seed production over competitors’ technology.

Wheat ranks third behind corn and soybeans among U.S. field crops in planted acreage, USDA says. Approximately 39.1 million acres of wheat were harvested this year.

A Look Behind and Forward
The development of hybrid non-GMO wheat products has netted a mixed bag of results for technology manufacturers, among them Syngenta, BASF and Bayer.

Bayer sold its research and development platform for hybrid wheat to BASF in 2018. “Bayer was required to divest the hybrid wheat program it was working on as part of the acquisition of Monsanto,” a Bayer spokesman told Farm Journal.

Since then, the company has begun working on a program to develop hybrid wheat in both the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., the company is building on its WestBred germplasm portfolio, “harnessing internal R&D to advance hybrid wheat and extend our seed offerings beyond varietal wheat,” the Bayer spokesman says.

In 2023, BASF announced its decision to pull its hybrid wheat development program from North America, despite 15 years of research. The company is continuing its hybrid wheat development work in Europe.

Different Products, Different Goals

While Bayer has regeared its efforts and BASF dropped out of the race, Syngenta has made inroads in developing and launching hybrid hard red spring wheat (HRS) commercially in the U.S.

In 2023, Syngenta launched three hybrid HRS wheat products in the U.S. Northern Plains under the AgriPro brand.

HRS wheat is considered the “aristocrat of wheat” used in designer wheat foods such as bagels, artisan health breads, pizza crust and other strong dough applications, according to the U.S. Wheat Associates.

In 2023, 5.6 million acres of HRS wheat were planted in the United States, a slight increase from 5.3 million acres in 2022. The bulk of HRS wheat is grown in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho and Washington.

More Acreage Potential?
Unlike Syngenta, Corteva is focusing its current development efforts on HRW, the most widely grown class of wheat in the U.S.

HRW is known for its consistency and milling efficiency. The U.S. Wheat Associates describes it as a reliable foundational ingredient for most wheat-based products.

In 2024, an estimated 24.1 million acres of HRW wheat was planted in the U.S., according to the USDA.

GMO Wheat Gains A Foothold
In total, there are seven different types of wheat grown in the U.S. today:

hard red winter
hard red spring
soft red winter
soft white
hard white winter
hard white spring
durum

Currently, none of the seven types is based on any genetic modification. But that could change with USDA’s decision this past August to give a green light to the commercial production of HB4 wheat.

HB4 is a genetically modified wheat variety developed by Bioceres Crop Solutions and features a trait for drought tolerance.

The U.S. joins Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay in authorizing HB4 wheat, which could mark a significant shift in the landscape of wheat production.

Although USDA’s ruling clears the regulatory pathway for cultivation of HB4 wheat in the U.S., there are several additional steps needed before HB4is grown commercially. These include the need to conduct closed-system field trials prior to commercialization.

U.S. Wheat Associates said in August the organization will continue monitoring Bioceres’ commercialization plans to ensure careful stewardship and alignment with the “ Wheat Industry Principles for Biotechnology Commercialization ” developed jointly with the National Association of Wheat Growers.

Your Next Read: Make Fertilizer Decisions With Confidence and Insight

EU Seeks Revised GMO Rules to Loosen Curbs on Gene-Edited Crops

Wed, 05 Jul 2023 18:38:16 GMT

The European Commission proposed revising its rules on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on Wednesday to loosen some restrictions for plants resulting from newer gene-editing technology.

The EU executive said the move would give farmers more resilient crops and reduce the use of chemical pesticides and offer consumers food with higher nutritional value.

The Commission launched a review in 2021 after concluding that GMO legislation from 2001 was “not fit for purpose”. The EU’s top court had ruled in 2018 that genome-editing techniques should be governed by GMO rules.

On Wednesday the Commission proposed splitting new genomic technique (NGT) plants into two categories.

Those that could also occur naturally or by conventional breeding would be exempted from GMO legislation and labelling
requirements. All other NGT plants would be treated as GMOs, requiring risk assessments and authorization.

Plants will qualify for the first category if there are no more than 20 genetic modifications.

A faster track approval process would apply for the second category of plants if, for example, they are more tolerant to climate change or require less water or fertilizer.

Related Story: John Phipps: The New Technology Helping Cool the GMO Debate

The proposal needs approval from the European Parliament and EU governments and may be revised.

The most prominent example of the new technology is the CRISPR/Cas9 “genome scissors”, for which Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Bayer, the world’s second-largest seeds and pesticides maker, described the proposal as “ground-breaking”.

“Plant breeding normally takes more than a decade from the first positive research results to market entry. Gene editing allows us to cut five years out of this process,” said Bayer’s head of sustainability Matthias Berninger.

Biotech industry group EuropaBio urged an extension of the rules to cover micro-organisms.

Environmental groups say NGT plants need careful controls and the proposal risks making European farming dependent on large agribusiness companies.

Friends of the Earth campaigner Mute Schimpf said it was essential labelling requirements remain so that consumers could make informed choices. The need to label has effectively prevented sales of GM food items to EU consumers.

(Reporting by Philip Blenkinsop; additional reporting by Ludwig Burger in Frankfurt; editing by Jason Neely and Alexander Smith)

John Phipps: The New Technology Helping Cool the GMO Debate

Tue, 20 Jun 2023 13:59:09 GMT

The public apprehension over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) has slowly dissipated as an abundance of non-GMO offerings have been made available to consumers. One major concern was the transference of genetic material between species.

These transgenic mutations made some consumers uneasy, but they also made GMOs detectable. Soon simple and rapid tests could make sure if corn was GMO or not. Such detectability is crucial.

Compare this situation to organic, for example, where the only criterion was essentially the word of the producer, backed by paperwork, inspections, and other oversight – not a laboratory test. Science has moved on.

Using a genetic engineering tool with the handy name of CRISPR/Cas9, breeders can now alter genes without using transgenic material. This is essentially the same method as conventional plant breeding only capable of targeting a specific gene segment instead of waiting for an identical natural mutation to occur and be sorted out.

CRISPR results are identical to results from conventional breeding. Without outside material involved it is impossible to differentiate from conventional and CRISPR results.

While food activists may still object, recent scandals in the organic food industry suggest trying to discriminate against CRISPR products will be impossible or at least worse than the current shaky organic verification regimes. It would also make no sense or calm any fear.

Gene alterations occur constantly from natural causes such as background radiation, gene replication errors, and traditional breeding, evidenced by the importance of pedigrees for breeding livestock.

When this genetic tool first began getting attention, I wrote about it in Top Producer. I was a little too enthusiastic six years ago about when the first fruits of this work would show up in supermarkets.

It is happening now, and one of the first foods to be improved is sadly, mustard greens. The new varieties are less bitter, I guess, but then I’m far from a salad aficionado.

My hope is we could finally solve some more pressing vegetable issues – like shippable tomatoes with August-garden juiciness and flavor. Meanwhile consumers may be, knowingly or not, storing one of the most advanced scientific discoveries in their refrigerators.

In other words, we’ll be putting CRISPR in the crisper.

Is the U.S. Becoming Less Competitive in Growing Wheat? A New Warning Sign for the Future of Wheat

Mon, 06 Mar 2023 23:10:53 GMT

The same week as Brazil became the second country to approve the planting of GMO wheat , BASF announced it’s halting work to develop hybrid wheat in North America. The move is one the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) fears could ultimately drive more wheat acres out of the U.S., unless more public and private investments into research and development are made.

BASF isn’t moving out of wheat entirely; instead, the company is now focusing on developing a new type of wheat in Europe. According to Reuters , wheat breeders have been working to develop cross-bred wheat varieties that not only increase yields but make the crop more resistant to drought and disease. However, the hybridization of wheat is both costly and slow, which doesn’t provide much incentive to stay in the North America market.

BASF announced last month it’s cutting 2,600 jobs due to rising cost and weak earnings and, according to Reuters, those job cuts include hybrid wheat developers in the U.S. and Canada.

Wheat’s Struggle to Stay Competitive in the U.S.

Chandler Goule, CEO of NAWG, says BASF notified the association of its decision before the company made the announcement. Goule says while he understands BASF’s decision, he fears the U.S. could become less competitive and cause declining U.S. wheat acres over the next decade.

“That says a couple of things to us,” says Goule. “It says one, that the margins in the wheat industry are not wide enough to

generate enough financial support for continued research. That’s something I think we as an industry need to look at as a whole, not just because BAF pulled out. But that means we need to be putting more dollars towards research and advancement, so that these private companies and our land grants can all continue to help us move breeding programs forward.”

He says without that research, wheat won’t be as competitive a crop to grow in the U.S., when you compare it to other crops such as corn and soybeans.

“I fear that in the next 10 to 20 years, we will continue to see a decrease in wheat acres, even though we saw an uptick this year. But if you look at the last 10 to 15 years, there has been a steady decline of wheat acres in the United States. We’re going to do the same thing to the wheat industry that we did to the oat industry in that we’re going to push it all into Canada, because we are not able to adopt those advanced technologies. Then corn, soy, canola and other grains are going to take over what has predominantly been wheat acres for hundreds of years,” says Goule.

Is the Approval of GE Wheat in the U.S. a Possible Answer?

Also last week, Brazil, a country that plants about 3 million hectares of wheat annually, became the second country to approve the technology for planting. The first country to clear GE wheat for planting was Argentina. Brazil says global food supply fears and drought’s impact on the crop helped fuel the decision.

Could the U.S. approve GMO wheat next? Goule says because wheat is used in so many food products, education will continue to be key in finally getting U.S. consumers to trust and understand that GE wheat is safe.

“We aren’t able to take advantage of GE events like corn and soy, because we are a food grain and not a feed grain, and we are much closer to the consumer,” says Goule. “It’s unfortunate that the consumer is still so scared of such a safe technology that would actually help us produce more wheat to help us with situations like Russia and Ukraine. The hybridization of wheat is great, and that is moving us along faster than standardized breeding has, but it still is not as fast as if we were able to adopt advanced technologies like GE.”

Fighting for the Future By Reaching Those Outside of Ag

The fight to not only keep wheat competitive, but also grow its footprint in the U.S., is one Goule has already started. He says studies are currently underway to show the life-cycle of wheat, data that could prove just how climate-friendly a crop like wheat is for farmers and the environment. The other piece of that puzzle is to not only educate policy makers and consumers about the importance of wheat in the world’s food supply, but also why things like GE wheat are a sustainable path forward.

“Those urban members are so focused on SNAP and feeding programs, well those programs all focus around a grain-based diet, bread and other foods along those lines,” says Goule.

That’s why Goule thinks of wheat as a food grain instead of a feed grain. He says it’s vital that not only the wheat industry, but also those representing rice and pulse crops, continue to push those conversations beyond just agriculture.

“I think the more that we can start looking outside the box and not talking just to our echo chamber here in ag, but really start educating these urban members on why this technology is important,” he says. “We have to educate on why we should increase wheat acres in the United States, why a whole grain diet is so important not only for our kids and our consumers here in the U.S, but worldwide.”

Related Story:

‘It Looks Like a War Zone': Texas Farmer Describes Wheat Crop Now Ravaged by Sunday’s Derecho and Dust Storm

U.S.'s "Candid" GMO Corn Conversation With Mexico Results In Changes To Looming Trade Dispute

Mon, 19 Dec 2022 19:58:03 GMT

USDA’s Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai hosted senior Mexican officials in Washington, D.C. on Friday.

According to USDA’s press release , the group shared a “candid” conversation about President López Obrador’s 2020 decree regarding imports of biotech products. The decree would bar imports of GMO corn beginning in 2024 and prohibit use of glyphosate.

U.S. officials said Mexico “presented some potential amendments” to the decree.

According to the Foreign Ministry, Mexico “explained its food security policy” by highlighting Mexico’s three goals:

1. Preserve Mexico’s bicultural heritage as the birthplace of more than 60 varieties of corn
2. Continue to ensure self-sufficiency in corn for tortillas
3. Strengthen food security in North America

“We agreed to review their proposal closely and follow up with questions or concerns in short order,” said Tai and Vilsack in a joint statement. “There is a joint recognition that time is of the essence and we must determine a path forward soon.”

Meeting Timeline

This isn’t the first conversation Vilsack and Tai have shared with Mexico’s officials regarding the decree. These meetings have been ongoing in 2022, with the latest talks coming at the urging of many senators and ag groups to shutdown the decree.

“Corn farmers are right now in the process of making planting decisions for next spring, and any additional uncertainty in the market affects their ability to appropriately respond to multiple market signals,” National Corn Growers Association said in a letter to President Biden. “If the decree is not completely withdrawn, we ask that your administration initiate a case under USMCA.”

The Biden Administration previously made known they would challenge Mexico under the USMCA if the decree is not redacted or removed completely.

More on Mexico :

NCGA Adds to the List of Those Urging Biden to Address Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban
USMCA Disputes Run Ramped Again, This Time with Mexico

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bayer Bid to Nix Roundup Lawsuits

Tue, 21 Jun 2022 14:58:52 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Bayer AG’s bid to dismiss legal claims by customers who contend its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer as the German company seeks to avoid potentially billions of dollars in damages.

The justices turned away a Bayer appeal and left in place a lower court decision that upheld $25 million in damages awarded to California resident Edwin Hardeman, a Roundup user who blamed his cancer on the pharmaceutical and chemical giant’s glyphosate-based weedkillers.

The Supreme Court’s action dealt a blow to Bayer as the company maneuvers to limit its legal liability in thousands of cases. The justices have a second petition pending on a related issue that they could act upon in the coming weeks.

Ag Groups Rally Around “Science-Based Regulatory Process”

Court Orders EPA to Reassess Glyphosate Impact on Human Health, Environment

Bayer Weighs Glyphosate Alternatives

Jury Decision marks Fourth Consecutive Win in Court for Bayer and Roundup

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration in May urged the court not to hear the Bayer appeal, reversing the government’s position previously taken under former President Donald Trump.

Bayer has lost three trials in which Roundup users have been awarded tens of millions of dollars in each, while also winning four trials. Bayer had pinned hopes for relief on the conservative-majority Supreme Court, which has a reputation for being pro-business.

Bayer said it “respectfully disagrees” with the court’s decision and that the company is “fully prepared to manage the litigation risk associated with potential future claims in the U.S.”

On Friday, a federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take a fresh look at whether the active ingredient glyphosate poses unreasonable risks to humans and the environment. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with several environmental, farm worker and food safety advocacy groups that the EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and threatens endangered species. read more

Bayer has asked the Supreme Court to review the verdict in Hardeman’s case, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit in May 2021. Hardeman had regularly used Roundup for 26 years at his home in northern California before being diagnosed with a form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Bayer said in its March annual report that it had resolved about 107,000 cases out of about 138,000 cases overall.

Bayer, which also makes aspirin, Yasmin birth-control pills and the stroke prevention drug Xarelto among other products, has argued that the cancer claims over Roundup and glyphosate go against sound science and product clearance from the EPA. The agency has upheld guidance that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and not a risk to public health when used as indicated on the label.

Bayer has said it should not be penalized for marketing a product deemed safe by the EPA and on which the agency would not allow a cancer warning to be printed.

The lawsuits against Bayer have said the company should have warned customers of the alleged cancer risk.

Roundup-related lawsuits have dogged Bayer since it acquired the brand as part of its $63 billion purchase of agricultural seeds and pesticides maker Monsanto in 2018.

Bayer struck a settlement deal in principle with plaintiffs in June 2020 but failed to win court approval for a separate agreement on how to handle future cases.

In July 2021, Bayer took an additional litigation provision of $4.5 billion in case of an unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court or in case the justices declined to consider its appeal. This leaves “significant upside” if the Supreme Court rules in its favor, according to Bayer.

The provision came on top of $11.6 billion it previously set aside for settlements and litigation over the matter.

Bayer plans to replace glyphosate in weedkillers for the U.S. residential market for non-professional gardeners with other active ingredients.

Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Ludwig Burger; Editing by Will Dunham

Gene Editing: Building Better Blueprints, One Gene at a Time

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:18:48 GMT

The following commentary is from Bob Reiter, Monsanto’s Global VP of Research & Development. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

Ever since its introduction to the world over five years ago, a gene-editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9 has been the scientific breakthrough that everyone is talking about. And while it’s the one generating the most buzz, CRISPR is just one of the gene-editing tools that scientists have been excitedly exploring over the last decade. In fact, more than 11K gene-editing studies have been published since 2010.

It encourages me to see new articles everyday about the latest gene-editing research and potential scientific breakthroughs, particularly in human health care. What draws me into these stories is the great promise that gene editing may enable researchers to treat incurable and fatal genetic diseases , modify human immune cells to kill certain types of cancer cells , and even stop the spread of Malaria , which kills nearly half a million people each year. In agriculture, we believe gene-editing could help cultivate plant varieties that reduce the need for pesticides and don’t require as many natural resources, while also helping farmers grow more crops – which would be a win for both people and the planet.

But as “gene editing” and “CRISPR” become more embedded in pop culture, I sometimes worry that the scientific community isn’t doing enough to adequately help the public understand exactly what this technology does, why it’s something to celebrate instead of fear, and why scientists, like me, are so excited about it.

In many news stories, CRISPR is described as a pair of molecular “scissors” that enables scientists to make precise improvements within DNA, which is often referred to as the “ Blueprint of Life .” Other gene-editing tools are said to function more like a “ pencil and eraser .” I’m sure most people are quite familiar with scissors, pencils, erasers, and blueprints, but here’s a story that helps bring these concepts together in a more concrete way.

That Time I Built a House…

When I was in my early twenties, I built a house. And I don’t mean that I hired a contractor to build a house, or picked out a floorplan in a new neighborhood development… I mean that I literally drew the blueprints and, with the help of two family members, built the entire house from the ground up.

This is where I should probably remind you that I’m a plant scientist, not a carpenter or construction worker. The biggest thing I’d “constructed” before the house was probably my sixth-grade science fair project, when I built a detailed model of the entire cellular respiratory pathway using only my sister’s college biology textbook as a reference (this was long before the Internet).

Fast forward about ten years to when I won a government lottery for one of a few properties at a new lakeside development in Manitoba, Canada, where I’m originally from. I only had to pay $350 for the land – so taking it was a no-brainer; but the catch was that I had to build a house on it within five years.

I was still in graduate school at the time – needless to say, I couldn’t afford to hire professionals to build the house for me. So, I did what any other financially-challenged, but technically-minded college student would do: I went to the University of Wisconsin library, studied all the construction books I could find in the engineering section, designed and built the architectural plans for my house, and miraculously, got them approved.

Then, over the course of a few summers, my dad, brother-in-law and I brought this dream to reality. Our construction process was slow, but precise. I was the reader and translator of the blueprints, cutting each board or tile to the correct measurements. Then I gave detailed instructions to my “crew,” telling them exactly where each piece needed to go. And eventually, we ended up with a pretty impressive 1,400-square-foot lake cottage that my family still uses to this day.

Everything Hinges on the Blueprint

Over the years, I’ve thought back on that process many times, particularly as I’ve watched the evolution of both human health and agricultural research due to increasing knowledge about DNA and genetic sequencing. Much like the blueprints that informed the building of my house, DNA provides the information for building all the proteins within every living thing on Earth – humans, animals, plants, bacteria, and other single-celled organisms. Proteins are like the building blocks of our bodies. Everything we do is controlled by the proteins within our cells, and each gene in our DNA contains the code for a unique protein structure.

DNA can’t do it all alone; it relies on molecules called Messenger RNA (mRNA) to deliver the instructions for building each protein to the parts of the cells that make them. In my house-building analogy, I was like the Messenger RNA, reading the blueprints and delivering specific instructions for building each piece of the house (or protein) to my crew, which then carried out the orders.

Now consider this: what if there was a defect in the blueprint for the house? If we followed those instructions anyway, the defect would be built into the house – which could later lead to structural problems, ranging from minor to catastrophic, depending on which part the defect involved.

But… if I was able to pinpoint the defect in the blueprint, I could take an eraser and pencil to fix the mistake (or use scissors to snip out the faulty section and replace it), then deliver those new instructions, and my crew would build the flawless version of the house as it was originally intended.

On the other hand, if I wanted to add a feature to improve the house design mid-construction, like adding a kitchen cabinet or moving a wall one inch to the left, I could do the same thing: update the blueprints and deliver the improved instructions to the building crew. It’s important to remember that, relative to the size and complexity of the blueprint, these changes are small and precise. The house as a whole will still stand as it would have before, with one or two targeted improvements having been made.

That is what gene-editing tools are now enabling scientists to do. And the possibility of making improvements never before dreamed about – like fixing rare diseases caused by a defect in the genetic blueprint – is certainly worth getting excited about.

“It will take consumer understanding and acceptance of gene-editing tools and the products they enable for the technology to be impactful across industries and around the world. The only way that will happen is if those of us who have already embraced gene editing can do a better job of communicating with those who haven’t.”

The Potential of Gene Editing for Agriculture

Gene editing offers the same exciting potential of newly possible innovations in agriculture. In crop science, we believe gene-editing tools like CRISPR will allow researchers to make precise improvements within a plant’s DNA to:

Enable a beneficial characteristic (such as drought tolerance or improved nutrition),
Deactivate an unfavorable characteristic (such as disease vulnerability), or –
Break genetic linkages between genes conferring positive traits (like disease resistance) with less desirable traits (like drought sensitivity), generating plant varieties with the most desirable combinations of traits.

Basically, these tools have the potential to help plant scientists integrate the most desirable traits into improved seed products for farmers with more efficiency and precision than ever before. And by giving plants a better chance of survival, particularly in regions that struggle with hunger and malnutrition , we will be able to give people a better chance at life as well. As Bill Gates eloquently advocated in a recent article , “…improving the productivity of crops is fundamental to ending extreme poverty… Gene editing to make crops more abundant and resilient could be a lifesaver on a massive scale.”

Gene Editing vs. Genetic Engineering

Since gene editing does not introduce DNA from a different plant species (like “GMO” crops produced by genetic engineering), the end product (edited DNA) is no different than what plant breeders might eventually arrive at through selective breeding for a specific trait . This is why the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced that it will regulate gene-edited plant varieties in the same way as varieties bred through traditional methods – a rational, science-based approach that I agree with. Keep in mind that all new plant varieties still go through years of field trialing and safety testing before they are made available to farmers to grow. Gene-editing tools simply help plant breeders achieve the desired genetic blueprint much faster, as well as more reliably and cost-effectively, before seeds advance to the next stage of the development process.

Often I am asked if gene-edited seed products will replace the GMO seeds available to farmers today. (As a refresher, the key difference is that genetic engineering transfers a desirable trait from one species to another, while gene editing makes improvements using genetic material from within the plant’s own family.) I go back to my construction story and consider building my house in a warmer climate. In a “gene-editing scenario,” I could edit the blueprint and redesign the structure to have thicker walls, more insulation, and properly positioned windows. But if I really wanted the house to be cooler, I would need to “genetically modify” the blueprint to include an air-conditioning unit – an external “trait” not included in the home’s original design. So sometimes there are limits as to what we can do to improve a plant by just editing its native DNA sequence, and I foresee a continued need for both types of technology to meet the world’s agricultural challenges.

Communicating the Benefits of a Better Blueprint

Scientific breakthroughs like gene editing are the reason I became a scientist – I’ve always been motivated to do research that helps make the world a better place. The safe and responsible use of these tools can do just that. However, it will take consumer understanding and acceptance of gene-editing tools and the products they enable for the technology to be impactful across industries and around the world. The only way that will happen is if those of us who have already embraced gene editing can do a better job of communicating with those who haven’t. We must help people understand that gene editing works with nature in a way that is safe… and that a better blueprint builds a better house.

Bob Reiter is Monsanto’s Global VP of Research & Development.

Gene Editing: Building Better Blueprints, One Gene at a Time

Wed, 11 Nov 2020 06:10:10 GMT

“It will take consumer understanding and acceptance of gene-editing tools and the products they enable for the technology to be impactful across industries and around the world. The only way that will happen is if those of us who have already embraced gene editing can do a better job of communicating with those who haven’t.”

Enable a beneficial characteristic (such as drought tolerance or improved nutrition),
Deactivate an unfavorable characteristic (such as disease vulnerability), or –
Break genetic linkages between genes conferring positive traits (like disease resistance) with less desirable traits (like drought sensitivity), generating plant varieties with the most desirable combinations of traits.

GMOs

How the Purple Tomato is Changing Consumer Perception of GMOs

Companies Race to Bring More Hybrid Wheat to the U.S.

EU Seeks Revised GMO Rules to Loosen Curbs on Gene-Edited Crops

Related Story: John Phipps: The New Technology Helping Cool the GMO Debate

John Phipps: The New Technology Helping Cool the GMO Debate

Is the U.S. Becoming Less Competitive in Growing Wheat? A New Warning Sign for the Future of Wheat

Wheat’s Struggle to Stay Competitive in the U.S.

Is the Approval of GE Wheat in the U.S. a Possible Answer?

U.S.'s "Candid" GMO Corn Conversation With Mexico Results In Changes To Looming Trade Dispute

Meeting Timeline

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bayer Bid to Nix Roundup Lawsuits

Related Articles

Ag Groups Rally Around “Science-Based Regulatory Process”

Court Orders EPA to Reassess Glyphosate Impact on Human Health, Environment

Bayer Weighs Glyphosate Alternatives

Jury Decision marks Fourth Consecutive Win in Court for Bayer and Roundup

Bayer said in its March annual report that it had resolved about 107,000 cases out of about 138,000 cases overall.

Gene Editing: Building Better Blueprints, One Gene at a Time

Gene Editing: Building Better Blueprints, One Gene at a Time