Relax gene editing will speed up new varietal development

On May 3, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) released its updated guidance on plant breeding innovation, bringing a close to a consultation process launched in 2021. The guidance covers the environmental safety of plants developed using gene editing and is grounded in the exact science that informed Health Canada’s food safety guidelines last year. These pieces help pave the way for Canadian farmers to have faster access to improved plant varieties.
“The CFIA’s updated guidance helps Canada stay competitive on the global stage,” said Krista Thomas, Vice President of Seed Innovation for the Canada Grains Council. “Many of our trading partners have already adopted similar science-based policies, and farmers outside of Canada have grown gene-edited crops since 2015. When we let the science be the core of regulatory decision-making, we can trust the result and it is safe.”
Gene editing and the ability to improve plant characteristics quickly and precisely can reduce the use of water, pesticides, fertilizers, land, and other resources in crop production.
My first thought on this move was how the government is finally trying to get it right. What’s the hidden agenda here, or is there one? I’m a total believer in genetically modified plant varieties, so this was and is exciting news for the most part.
I reached out to my good friend Dr. Stuart Smyth at the University of Saskatchewan and asked him, Stuart, is gene editing something new? I thought we’d been doing that, but you explain what the government announced last week.
“It’s a bit different than what we’ve been doing for the last 30 years on the genetically modified side of crop development where a foreign gene gets inserted to give herbicide or insect resistance. And so with gene editing, all they’re doing is using the previous mutagenic technologies. However, they are doing those mutations specifically to one gene or several genes that will provide an advantage, say, drought tolerance or increased nutrient deficiencies. So where we see a difference is that there’s no foreign DNA inserted into these varieties, and gene editing will speed up the natural rates of crop variety improvement.”
Dr. Smyth said re increased speedup time; some estimates say a traditional mutagenic variety has taken 10 to 12 years to market. Some estimates say it could shorten it to three to five years saving seven to nine years off the process of developing new crop varieties.
On the CFIA’s further announcement, Smyth said these new gene editing technologies will have conventional plant breeding classification.
“So, the real benefit for farmers nationwide is that universities haven’t developed genetically modified crop varieties. And so, with the allowance of gene editing, they can now adopt these new innovative breeding technologies. And in a few years, we’ll see significant increases in yields and other important traits coming out of our public institutions.”
Dr. Smyth is doing some work to understand better what’s going on regarding changes in the sustainability of agriculture.
“And our biggest problem is we need a robust data set from the early 1990s to know whether agriculture’s getting better, staying about the same, or worsening. So we are surveying about 160 farmers around Saskatchewan about their various production practices. So how much fertilizer and chemicals are they using and assessing that data? So we’ve found that, for example, nitrogen fertilizer use has increased, but so has yields. So we’re producing more bushels of crop per acre now than we were previously due to more efficient fertilizer use.
My question to him was, will you catch people’s attention in places like Ottawa and have them see this stuff, review it, and use it?
“That’s the goal. We have two papers submitted to journals right now and undergoing peer review. So if we’re fortunate, we’ll have those published by fall. Then we can start making them available to policymakers, not only in Ottawa but to other provincial capitals and to the agriculture industry and organizations as a whole to be able to use as part of their communications.”
HS: Farmers get a little tired when told we’re not doing it well enough. And that doesn’t mean it can’t improve, but we’ve got some of the best farmers in the world doing what they should be doing.
Stuart: I agree with you, Harry, and when I speak to the media, I say, “Look, I’ll put Canadian farmers in terms of sustainability, there may be some farmers in some areas in some other countries that are matching us, but I don’t think there are farmers in other parts of the world that are beating us.” •