In her address to the Grain and Seed Trade Association’s centennial conference in Christchurch, Canterbury University’s Professor Paula Jameson told the 160 delegates gene editing (CRISPR induced mutation) is taking the scientific and biological world by storm.
But NZ law treats gene editing the same as it does genetic engineering – it’s very restrictive, she said.
Removing allergens from milk, making manuka disease-resistant and preventing wilding pines are other potential uses of gene editing in NZ.
In a plant breeding context, gene editing can rapidly generate improved plant varieties with no trace of foreign DNA.
Earlier DNA modifications via gene transfer techniques pioneered in the 1970s have resulted in a range of genetically modified (GM) crops grown by 24 countries, covering 10% of the world’s arable land.
No GM plants are grown out of containment in NZ.
“The issue for gene editing for NZ is one of legislation and that is a pity as we have work that shows gene-edited plants have huge benefit including increased yield and quality,” Jameson said.
Gene editing, a very new technology in the scientific arena, is a molecular technique that makes changes in the DNA sequence at specific sites in a genome, allowing targeted and precise genetic changes.
In grain and seed it has ability to edit selected genes in ryegrass, wheat, brassicas and peas, enhance disease resistance, increase herbicide tolerance and increase herbage digestibility.
“It’s a crack in creation – the new power to control evolution.
“As plant breeders you have been doing chemically induced mutations for 80 years and there’s no legislation related to that.
“Our biggest challenge is political and that’s a consequence of the same lobby that has been against genetic engineering and genetic modification in NZ.
“That is the death place of agriculture breeding innovation and legislation has put us there.
“Our challenge is to have our smaller companies in a strong position to take on gene editing in the future,” Jameson said.
A discussion paper released this month by the Royal Society outlines the relevant considerations, risks and potential benefits of using gene editing for primary production sectors including agriculture, forestry and horticulture.
The paper is part of the society’s larger Gene Editing in Aotearoa project for which a multidisciplinary expert panel has been assembled to explore the wider social, cultural, legal and economic implications of gene editing.
Massey University molecular genetics expert and panel co-chairman Professor Barry Scott said it’s a good time for New Zealanders to consider what gene editing can offer the primary industries.
NZ plant breeders are muscling in their support.
“We have missed the boat on GM, we can’t miss this boat,” NZ Plant Breeding and Research Association general manager Thomas Chin said.
NZ has a significant plant breeding industry, primarily in horticulture, pastoral and arable seeds, which underpins the country’s agricultural base.
In 2017 NZ exported $200m worth of seed to more than 40 countries.
New gene-editing techniques should not be regulated in the same way as transgenics, commonly called genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
“Gene editing is largely an extension of conventional breeding techniques that delivers nature identical traits with no foreign DNA being inserted.
“While these new techniques are currently regulated under the jurisdiction of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, that’s 22-year-old legislation that never envisaged such innovation and NZ companies will be reluctant to invest in them.
“This will put a brake on NZ’s competitiveness and future opportunities, especially when our agricultural competitors such as the United States and Australia do not regulate gene editing in the same way,” Chin said.
Gene editing of pasture species such as ryegrass has huge potential for NZ farmers including cutting nitrogen leaching and greenhouse gas emissions as well as improving pasture quality and productivity.
A key focus for plant breeders is to develop better and improved cultivars that are more resistant to insects and other pests.
Improved resistance would mean less application of pesticides and other chemicals, saving money for farmers, helping the environment and delivering a better-quality product to consumers.
“We urge NZ policy makers not to regulate gene editing in the same way as a GMO,” Chin said.
