tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/crispr-plants-53819/articlesCRISPR plants – The Conversation2019-03-21T10:46:21Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1133382019-03-21T10:46:21Z2019-03-21T10:46:21ZWill more genetically engineered foods be approved under the FDA’s new leadership?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264654/original/file-20190319-60964-tkeko6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will food laws change as more GM foods are created?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/law-book-gavel-food-393936415">Zerbor/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world of food and drug regulation was rocked earlier this month by the news of a change in leadership at the Food and Drug Administration. Commissioner Scott Gottlieb <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/03/05/700482545/fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-announces-he-will-resign">resigned</a> and will step down in early April. His <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/health/fda-ned-sharpless.html">temporary replacement</a> is <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/leadership/director">Dr. Ned Sharpless</a>, director of the National Cancer Institute. </p>
<p>As the news filtered out, stocks went <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/scott-gottlieb-s-exit-has-tobacco-stocks-rising-tuesday-14887017">up</a> and <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tobacco-stocks-drop-after-new-acting-fda-commissioner-is-named-14894403">down</a>, consumer advocacy groups <a href="https://www.nclnet.org/scott_gottlieb_resigns">looked back</a> on Gottlieb’s legacy and commentators <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/5/18252139/scott-gottlieb-resigns-fda-opioid-epidemic">worried</a> about the future of the agency.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264645/original/file-20190319-60975-5iveto.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=626&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will leave the post in early April.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/washington-dc-november-3-2017-fda-751933783">Albert H. Teich/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of the attention surrounding Gottlieb’s departure has focused on the consequences of the resignation for the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/10/fda-chiefs-departure-might-not-be-a-good-thing-for-vaping-industry.html">vaping and tobacco</a> industries. But the impact of changes in FDA leadership extends well beyond that. FDA-regulated products make up <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">20 percent of consumer spending</a> in the U.S. In the realm of food alone, FDA regulates <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm553038.htm">75 percent of our food supply</a>. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2667484">professor</a> who studies FDA and health law at Saint Louis University, I have been working with the <a href="https://www.slu.edu/law/health/index.php">Center for Health Law Studies</a> to monitor changes in FDA regulations and policies. Most recently I’ve been tracking progress on the FDA’s regulation of genetically modified food and think I can explain what consumers can expect from the agency after Gottlieb departs.</p>
<h2>How the FDA deals with GM plants and animals</h2>
<p>Genetically modified plants <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/geplants/ucm346030.htm">entered the U.S. market</a> in the 1990s. Since then, the official FDA position has been that food derived from genetically modified plants and animals is <a href="https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm346858.htm">not different</a> “from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” This includes considerations regarding safety and long-time effects associated with its consumption. </p>
<p>Many people regard genetically modified food as a means to feed more people at a lower cost. However, recent studies suggest that these promises remain <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/">unfulfilled</a> since genetically engineered food first became available in the 1990s.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264662/original/file-20190319-60972-12q744j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Chinook salmon during spawning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-chinook-salmon-during-spawning-1212401593">Kevin Cass/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=386&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264660/original/file-20190319-60964-s2kst.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ocean pout from Newfoundland, Canada.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dkeats/5532424100/">Derek Keats</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even though scientists have been able to alter the genome of animals for decades, it was not until 2008 that the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">issued guidance</a> on genetically modified animals. Since then, the agency has become much more active in this area. In 2017, months before Gottlieb became commissioner, the FDA issued <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm113605.htm">further guidance</a> on the use of emerging technologies, like <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/crispr-animals/">CRISPR</a>, that allow scientists to alter animal genomes.</p>
<p>As with plants, the FDA considers genetically engineered animals safe for human consumption. The agency <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/developmentapprovalprocess/newanimaldrugapplications/default.htm">reviews</a> these types of products as new animal drug applications. </p>
<p>In 2015, two years before Gottlieb began his tenure, the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/UCM466218.pdf">favorably reviewed</a> an application involving <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm473238.htm">AquAdvantage salmon.</a> Although AquAdvantage salmon was being produced in Canada in 2016, Congress directed FDA to restrict importation of AquAdvantage salmon into the United States. This genetically modified fish incorporates a growth hormone <a href="https://newfoodeconomy.org/fda-aquabounty-gmo-salmon-seafood-restriction-market/">gene</a> from Chinook salmon and links it to a genetic switch, or promoter. The promoter taken from an eel-like fish called ocean pout keeps the growth hormone gene in the “on” position, allowing it to grow significantly faster than comparable Atlantic salmon. </p>
<h2>Gottlieb’s FDA and regulation of GE food</h2>
<p>Also in 2016, Congress made the U.S. Department of Agriculture the <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/12/20/establishing-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">leading player</a> in the labeling of genetically engineered food. The USDA issued final <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">regulations</a> on this topic in late 2018. </p>
<p>As a response, on March 8, 2019, Gottlieb’s FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">reversed</a> the regulation prohibiting the importation of AquAdvantage salmon. With this decision, FDA underscored the agency’s belief that the product is safe for humans.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264716/original/file-20190319-60949-tfaxip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Both the U.S. FDA and the World Health Organization have declared genetically modified crops and engineered food safe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/genetically-modified-crops-engineered-food-agriculture-295120262">Lightspring/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition to endorsing the general safety of genetically engineered foods, Gottlieb’s official statement highlights the FDA’s goal of explicitly <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">assuring consumers</a> that genetically engineered foods available in the United States market “meet the FDA’s high safety standards.”</p>
<p>In many ways, the response of the agency can be seen as purely mechanical and deferential to USDA and Congress. But I think it also signals continuity of a permissive policy when it comes to genetically engineered food. By treating it the same way it treats traditional food, the FDA will intervene if genetically engineered food is contaminated or prepared under unsanitary conditions, as it normally does under its general mandate as an agency tasked with protecting the public health. </p>
<p>But we should not expect FDA to challenge the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">prevailing wisdom</a> among <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/how-are-gm-crops-regulated/">regulatory agencies</a> when it comes to genetically modified food.</p>
<p>The FDA’s behavior in this field is in line with the current scientific consensus in the <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/">United States</a> and <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/">abroad</a>. Numerous reputable institutions have upheld the safety of genetically engineered food. These include the <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/once-again-us-expert-panel-says-genetically-engineered-crops-are-safe-eat">National Academy of Sciences</a> and the <a href="https://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/">World Health Organization</a>. Nevertheless, there are some critics of this consensus who call for <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/">more research</a> into the long-term effects of eating genetically modified food. According to recent data, consumers <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/well/eat/are-gmo-foods-safe.html">continue to distrust</a> genetically engineered food as well.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264718/original/file-20190319-60949-1p4e9cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social justice activists staged a rally in Lafayette Park across from the White House and then marched to Monsanto’s Washington offices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenmelkisethian/14238580036/in/photolist-nGdrMf-dnoFgn-gvETVj-gr7dUZ-gvExKt-gvDXqK-26unk3Q-gvCYW3-gAtxC4-gvEQFy-gvDTwW-gAk9DK-gr7ega-gADipA-nJdjQB-etV6fy-8Fh1KR-8FjXfQ-nrPTPX-9XXYqx-gArj2b-gDY6Fa-nHXVNi-gBgbPk-gBgceE-nGypqS-gDXngj-gAtq9M-nrWUEU-gBSEdu-nJAToD-gBTcPT-gDXMBz-nJ69dW-gDWUxm-fzCmt6-gArPWH-gBThfr-gBTbxK-gBgaYH-gAjSoP-bkHahh-ngQvxa-gjKT9c-gAjgvp-gAjW3A-gAk3VR-gBTixr-3oABp-65sLVL">Stephen Melkisethian/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>GM food under Sharpless and beyond</h2>
<p>I believe that in the near future, FDA will address this distrust while continuing to guide the industry as different types of genetically engineered food enter the market.</p>
<p>Right now, we know virtually nothing about the views of the incoming acting commissioner on genetically engineered food, or food regulation in general. I think the most likely scenario is that Sharpless’ FDA will not stray from its current path regarding genetically engineered food. In 2018, Gottlieb launched a <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm624490.htm">Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan</a>, describing a public communication strategy to engage stakeholders. The plan includes public webinars on animal genome editing, as well as guidance on plant and animal biotechnology. Given the current scientific consensus, it would be surprising if Sharpless chose to move the agency in a different direction. </p>
<p>On the labeling front, now that FDA has relinquished most of its authority in this matter to the USDA, the debate is likely to shift elsewhere. Already under Gottlieb, much energy was spent on <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm621824.htm">labeling issues</a> involving almond milk and vegan cheese. The agency worried that using dairy names to described plant-based products might be confusing to consumers.</p>
<p>It is of course possible that Sharpless will not be at the helm of FDA for very long. After all, he is an interim figure of <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/trump-names-sharpless-lead-us-cancer-institute?r3f_986=https://www.google.com/">Democratic leanings</a>. However, given FDA’s <a href="https://endpts.com/how-do-you-replace-a-rock-star-like-scott-gottlieb-at-the-fda-maybe-you-dont/">improbable</a> recent history, there is reason to expect some institutional continuity in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>Consumers should therefore count on increasing numbers of genetically modified plants and animals entering our food supply. Absent a change in scientific consensus, FDA will smooth the pathway for companies to bring these products to market.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ana Santos Rutschman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With Gottlieb’s departure from the FDA imminent, what should we expect from the FDA? How is it likely to regulate the still controversial genetically engineered foods?Ana Santos Rutschman, Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1097932019-01-18T11:41:48Z2019-01-18T11:41:48ZCan genetic engineering save disappearing forests?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253963/original/file-20190115-152971-b95gy3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ash tree killed by the invasive emerald ash borer.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/ash-tree-killed-by-invasive-emerald-473923306?src=KncRToJdcimsTDFbg9eBsg-1-0">K Steve Cope</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Compared to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-scientist-says-he-made-a-gene-edited-baby-and-what-health-worries-may-ensue-107764">gene-edited babies in China</a> and ambitious projects to rescue <a href="https://theconversation.com/mammoth-cloning-the-ethics-16183">woolly mammoths</a> from extinction, biotech trees might sound pretty tame. </p>
<p>But releasing genetically engineered trees into forests to counter threats to forest health represents a new frontier in biotechnology. Even as the techniques of molecular biology have advanced, humans have not yet released a genetically engineered plant that is intended to spread and persist in an unmanaged environment. Biotech trees – genetically engineered or gene-edited – offer just that possibility. </p>
<p>One thing is clear: The threats facing our forests are many, and the health of these ecosystems is getting worse. A 2012 assessment by the U.S. Forest Service estimated that nearly <a href="https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Exec_summary.pdf">7 percent of forests nationwide</a> are in danger of losing at least a quarter of their tree vegetation by 2027. This estimate may not sound too worrisome, but it is 40 percent higher than the previous estimate made just six years earlier.</p>
<p>In 2018, at the request of several U.S. federal agencies and the <a href="http://www.usendowment.org">U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities</a>, the <a href="http://www.nationalacademies.org/">National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine</a> formed a committee to “examine the potential use of <a href="http://nas-sites.org/dels/studies/forest-biotech/report-release/">biotechnology to mitigate threats to forest tree health</a>.” Experts, including me, a <a href="https://facultyclusters.ncsu.edu/people/jadelbor">social scientist focused on emerging biotechnologies</a>, were asked to “identify the ecological, ethical, and social implications of deploying biotechnology in forests, and develop a research agenda to address knowledge gaps.” </p>
<p>Our committee members came from universities, federal agencies and NGOs and represented a range of disciplines: molecular biology, economics, forest ecology, law, tree breeding, ethics, population genetics and sociology. All of these perspectives were important for considering the many aspects and challenges of using biotechnology to improve forest health.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=294&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=294&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=294&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254230/original/file-20190116-163268-wscisp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More than 80 million acres are at risk of losing at least 25 percent of tree vegetation between 2013 and 2027 due to insects and diseases.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nap.edu/resource/25221/Highlights%20-%20Forest%20Biotechnology.pdf">Krist et al. (2014)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A crisis in US forests</h2>
<p>Climate change is just the tip of the iceberg. Forests face higher temperatures and droughts and more pests. As goods and people move around the globe, even more insects and pathogens hitchhike into our forests. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253960/original/file-20190115-152995-r0wu2h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The emerald ash borer is destroying ash trees in 31 states.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/agrilus-planipennis-emerald-ash-borer-414839956?src=jUed8FLLrgU6lAxsS410bw-1-0">Herman Wong HM/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253962/original/file-20190115-152968-7mqnlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The emerald ash borer feeds on ash trees, damaging and eventually killing them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/emerald-ash-borer-damage-680664127">K Steve Cope/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We focused on four case studies to illustrate the breadth of forest threats. The emerald ash borer arrived from Asia and causes severe mortality in five species of ash trees. First detected on U.S. soil in 2002, it had spread to 31 states as of May 2018. Whitebark pine, a keystone and foundational species in high elevations of the U.S. and Canada, is under attack by the native mountain pine beetle and an introduced fungus. Over half of whitebark pine in the northern U.S. and Canada have died. </p>
<p>Poplar trees are important to riparian ecosystems as well as for the forest products industry. A native fungal pathogen, <em>Septoria musiva,</em> has begun moving west, attacking natural populations of black cottonwood in Pacific Northwest forests and intensively cultivated hybrid poplar in Ontario. And the infamous chestnut blight, a fungus accidentally introduced from Asia to North America in the late 1800s, wiped out billions of <a href="https://www.acf.org/">American chestnut trees</a>.</p>
<p>Can biotech come to the rescue? Should it?</p>
<h2>It’s complicated</h2>
<p>Although there are many potential applications of biotechnology in forests, such as genetically engineering insect pests to suppress their populations, we focused specifically on biotech trees that could resist pests and pathogens. Through genetic engineering, for example, researchers could insert genes, from a similar or unrelated species, that help a tree tolerate or fight an insect or fungus.</p>
<p>It’s tempting to assume that the buzz and enthusiasm for gene editing will guarantee quick, easy and cheap solutions to these problems. But making a biotech tree will not be easy. Trees are large and long-lived, which means that research to test the durability and stability of an introduced trait will be expensive and take decades or longer. We also don’t know nearly as much about the complex and enormous genomes of trees, compared to lab favorites such as fruit flies and the mustard plant, <em>Arabidopsis</em>. </p>
<p>In addition, because trees need to survive over time and adapt to changing environments, it is essential to preserve and incorporate their existing genetic diversity into any “new” tree. Through evolutionary processes, tree populations already have many important adaptations to varied threats, and losing those could be disastrous. So even the fanciest biotech tree will ultimately depend on a thoughtful and deliberate breeding program to ensure long-term survival. For these reasons, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee recommends increasing investment not just in biotechnology research, but also in tree breeding, forest ecology and population genetics.</p>
<h2>Oversight challenges</h2>
<p>The committee found that the U.S. <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/sa_regulations/ct_agency_framework_roles">Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology</a>, which distributes federal oversight of biotechnology products among agencies such as EPA, USDA and FDA, is not fully prepared to consider the introduction of a biotech tree to improve forest health.</p>
<p>Most obviously, regulators have always required containment of pollen and seeds during biotech field trials to avoid the escape of genetic material. For example, the <a href="https://www.esf.edu/chestnut/">biotech chestnut</a> was not allowed to flower to ensure that transgenic pollen wouldn’t blow across the landscape during field trials. But if biotech trees are intended to spread their new traits, via seeds and pollen, to introduce pest resistance across landscapes, then studies of wild reproduction will be necessary. These are not currently allowed until a biotech tree is fully deregulated.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254263/original/file-20190117-24631-jc7pty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The family of James and Caroline Shelton poses by a large dead chestnut tree in Tremont Falls, Tennessee, circa 1920.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.acf.org/our-community/news/images/8914/">Great Smoky Mountains National Park Library</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another shortcoming of the current framework is that some biotech trees may not require any special review at all. The USDA, for example, was asked to consider a loblolly pine that was genetically engineered for greater wood density. But because USDA’s regulatory authority stems from its oversight of plant pest risks, it decided that it <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/brs_resp_arborgen_loblolly_pine.pdf">did not have any regulatory authority</a> over that biotech tree. Similar questions remain regarding organisms whose genes are edited using new tools such as CRISPR. </p>
<p>The committee noted that U.S. regulations fail to promote a comprehensive consideration of forest health. Although the <a href="https://ceq.doe.gov">National Environmental Policy Act</a> sometimes helps, some risks and many potential benefits are unlikely to be evaluated. This is the case for biotech trees as well as other tools to counter pests and pathogens, such as tree breeding, pesticides and site management practices.</p>
<h2>How do you measure the value of a forest?</h2>
<p>The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report suggests an “ecosystem services” framework for considering the various ways that trees and forests provide value to humans. These range from extraction of forest products to the use of forests for recreation to the ecological services a forest provides – water purification, species protection and carbon storage.</p>
<p>The committee also acknowledged that some ways of valuing the forest do not fit into the ecosystem services framework. For example, if forests are seen by some to have “intrinsic value,” then they have value in and of themselves, apart from the way humans value them and perhaps implying a kind of moral obligation to protect and respect them. Issues of “wildness” and “naturalness” also surface.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254356/original/file-20190117-32825-1fijwxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254356/original/file-20190117-32825-1fijwxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254356/original/file-20190117-32825-1fijwxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254356/original/file-20190117-32825-1fijwxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254356/original/file-20190117-32825-1fijwxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254356/original/file-20190117-32825-1fijwxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/254356/original/file-20190117-32825-1fijwxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chestnuts lying on the ground in autumn near a chestnut tree.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/chestnuts-lying-on-ground-autumn-near-42302506?src=2zRLyiau8HL9I_2gG3J-Yg-1-27">Peter Wollinga/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Wild nature?</h2>
<p>Paradoxically, a biotech tree could increase and decrease wildness. If wildness depends upon a lack of human intervention, then a biotech tree will reduce the wildness of a forest. But perhaps so would a conventionally bred, hybrid tree that was deliberately introduced into an ecosystem.</p>
<p>Which would reduce wildness more – the introduction of a biotech tree or the eradication of an important tree species? There are no right or wrong answers to these questions, but they remind us of the complexity of decisions to use technology to enhance “nature.”</p>
<p>This complexity points to a key recommendation of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report: dialogue among experts, stakeholders and communities about how to value forests, assess the risks and potential benefits of biotech, and understand complex public responses to any potential interventions, including those involving biotechnology. These processes need to be respectful, deliberative, transparent and inclusive.</p>
<p>Such processes, such as a <a href="http://go.ncsu.edu/ges-chestnut-report">2018 stakeholder workshop on the biotech chestnut</a>, will not erase conflict or even guarantee consensus, but they have the potential to create insight and understanding that can feed into democratic decisions that are informed by expert knowledge and public values.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109793/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason A. Delborne receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He is affiliated with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.</span></em></p>Forests in the US face many threats: climate change, invasive species, pests and pathogens. Could genetically engineering trees make these plants more resilient?Jason A. Delborne, Associate Professor of Science, Policy, and Society in the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1058012018-11-14T11:46:33Z2018-11-14T11:46:33ZSkipping a few thousand years: Rapid domestication of the groundcherry using gene editing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244618/original/file-20181108-74751-1js5zvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">These fresh vegetables and fruits are the result of hundreds to thousands of years of plant breeding and selection. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/fresh-organic-vegetables-fruits-on-shelf-291734936?src=UZ9QrVFavgQUe4SmXEdjKw-1-28">Irina Sokolovskaya / Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Shopping in your supermarket’s produce section is like strolling through a museum of humanity’s greatest inventions. Perfect ears of golden sweet corn; tomatoes of different sizes, shapes and colors; and spicy jalapeño peppers are all a testament to human ingenuity. You may not consider food an invention, but nearly all foods we eat are the product of thousands of years of constant breeding and selection. </p>
<p>In the distant past, when our ancestors transitioned from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian lifestyle, they began domesticating plants by breeding them for characteristics they found desirable – bigger, tastier fruits and more compact growth. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.006">The wild ancestors of domesticated crops</a> looked much different than the foods we eat today: They had smaller, sometimes inedible fruits; the plants grew in a sprawling growth pattern; and they scattered their seeds or dropped their fruit to the ground in order to ensure the survival of their species. To put it bluntly, you wouldn’t want these wild plants in your garden, or on your dinner plate. </p>
<p>The process of domestication resulted in the crops people grow and eat today, but it is a time- and labor-intensive process. Our lab, led by <a href="https://btiscience.org/joyce-van-eck/">Joyce Van Eck</a>, wanted to accelerate the domestication of the groundcherry, a semi-domesticated orphan crop, using modern gene editing techniques. Orphan crops do not grow well in large-scale agricultural production because they possess many undesirable characteristics such as sprawling growth and fruit drop. </p>
<p>We chose to work on groundcherry because it is a relative of domesticated tomato. We know a lot about tomato genetics and are able to compare a particular gene in domesticated tomato with its counterpart in the wild groundcherry to determine what edits need to be made. We have also crowdsourced local growers and farmers to learn which traits needed improvement and which ones were most valuable for agricultural production. Using this critical information gleaned from growers, we then used gene editing technology known as CRISPR/Cas9 to improve groundcherries.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244593/original/file-20181108-74757-eappkt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=636&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A typical groundcherry plant. Inset: groundcherry husks and fruit (dime for scale).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan T. Reem</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A neglected fruit</h2>
<p>Although you likely won’t find them in your grocery store, you may have seen groundcherries for sale at your local farmer’s market. The groundcherry is a wild relative of the tomatillo and, much like the tomatillo, its fruits are encased within a papery husk that protects the fruit from spoiling. The berry inside the husk is small – marble-sized – but delivers a big citrusy flavor. A source of antioxidants, vitamins A, B and C, and other nutrients, these small berries are exclusively grown in small-scale farms and home gardens. Based on the groundcherry’s wild growth habit and small size of fruit, we identified it as an underutilized crop. Our current research has been focused on how to incorporate groundcherry into the current food system.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=801&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=801&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=801&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244595/original/file-20181108-74787-8b8zsm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1006&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wild groundcherries growing on a small farm.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Esperanza Shenstone</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Commercial production of the groundcherry (<em>Physalis pruinosa</em>) is virtually nonexistent, a void that can at least partially be attributed to the plant’s unruly growth. With its long sprawling branches, the groundcherry requires extensive management to tame its growth. Its branches are adorned with husk-covered fruits that fall to the ground, often before ripening. This makes harvesting the fruits a labor-intensive process, and raises food safety concerns if the fruits come in contact with soil microorganisms that can cause food-borne illnesses.</p>
<p>A critical element of our groundcherry improvement project was crowdsourcing the wisdom of New York state citizen scientists and farmers to identify groundcherry characteristics or traits that needed improvement. Volunteer home-gardeners and farmers across different USDA hardiness zones collaborated with us by growing several groundcherry varieties and provided feedback on characteristics such as flowering time, fruit size, flavor and fruit drop. We used this critical feedback for improve this fruit. </p>
<h2>Taming the wild plants</h2>
<p>To improve traits in crops, plant breeders have largely relied on the natural mutations that occur in all living organisms. These natural mutation events change gene sequences and thus modify traits, but they are rare. Before gene editing, there were few tools to speed the breeding process. One of these, called ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), is a powerful carcinogen and used to randomly mutate DNA of thousands of plants. The downside is that all of the mutated plants must be carefully assessed to select those with mutations in the genes breeders wished to modify. </p>
<p>This process, still in use today, is messy and time-consuming; there is no way to control which genes are, or aren’t, mutated, and screening thousands of plants can take time.</p>
<p>CRISPR/Cas9 is a powerful gene editing tool that can be used to cause mutations in DNA more precisely than the EMS-induced random mutations. Rather than waiting for random mutations or evaluating thousands of mutagenized plants, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01932">CRISPR/Cas9 can accelerate breeding and domestication of crops</a> with greater specificity than any other technology. Fortunately, many of the traits associated with domestication, including fruit size and growth habit, are the result of natural mutations and rearrangements of DNA that ultimately change the function of the genes controlling these traits. CRISPR/Cas9 allows us to copy these mutations from the tomato and replicate them in the groundcherry. </p>
<p>Along with our collaborator <a href="http://lippmanlab.labsites.cshl.edu">Zach Lippman at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</a>, we recently published our first attempts at accelerating domestication of groundcherry <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0259-x">in the journal Nature Plants</a>. Our first priority was to tame the wild growth. </p>
<p>In tomato, a natural mutation in the <em>SELF PRUNING</em> (<em>SP</em>) gene, which represses flowering, results in plants that have <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9570763">more manageable growth</a>. We hoped to see the same response when we “CRISPR’ed” groundcherries, and found that the plants with mutated <em>SP</em> grew with a much more compact structure. Specifically, the branches of these plants were much shorter than their unedited counterparts. This more diminutive growth habit is preferable for larger-scale agricultural settings, because more compact plants can be grown and harvested more easily. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244601/original/file-20181108-74766-i2qi8u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Left: groundcherry with CRISPR’ed <em>SP</em>. Right: unedited groundcherry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan T. Reem</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We targeted one more well-studied gene in groundcherry, called <em>CLAVATA1</em> (<em>CLV1</em>), which directly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3309">controls fruit size</a>. In tomato, mutations in <em>CLV1</em> result in larger fruits. Because groundcherry fruits are rather small, we tried to increase fruit size by mutating <em>CLV1</em> with CRISPR/Cas9. </p>
<p>At first glance, groundcherry plants with mutated <em>CLV1</em> looked the same as their unedited counterparts. However, fruits from <em>CLV1</em>-mutant plants were larger, weighing 20 percent more after mutating this single gene. <em>CLV1</em> is just one of many genes controlling fruit size. We expect that mutating more of these genes will enable us to create larger fruit in a short time. The process of CRISPR'ing a plant gene, such as <em>CLV1</em> and <em>SP</em>, takes only about a year, whereas traditional breeding usually requires much more time and effort to achieve the same result.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=272&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244600/original/file-20181108-74769-2jvmdy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=342&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Left: groundcherry fruits with CRISPR’ed <em>CLV1</em>. Right: unedited groundcherries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nathan T. Reem</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In order to fully domesticate and improve groundcherry, we plan to study more genes associated with characteristics that would make it more attractive crops for farmers to grow and consumers to purchase. Currently, we are focusing on genes that have the potential to correct fruit drop, influence fruit flavor and nutrition, and increase fruit size further. </p>
<p>Ultimately, we envision creating a more compact groundcherry plant with larger, more nutrient-laden fruits that remain on the plant. To do so, CRISPR/Cas9 mutations of all the genes controlling these traits will be combined into a single plant to create a fully domesticated groundcherry worthy of growing in farmers’ fields and stocking grocery store shelves. Importantly, the groundcherry isn’t the only wild plant that can be domesticated. CRISPR/Cas9 can be applied to virtually any plant species, so in the future more wild species may be domesticated much the same way we have achieved here.</p>
<p>So, the next time you go shopping for groceries, pay attention to the produce aisle. Appreciate the efforts of our ancestors that took thousands of years to invent the foods we know today, and think how gene editing will help achieve this in a fraction of the time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nathan T. Reem receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Esperanza Shenstone receives funding from The Triad Foundation.</span></em></p>It has taken hundreds, if not thousands, of years to create the juicy, shiny produce that you take for granted at the supermarket. But now there is a faster way to domesticate wild fruits and veggies.Nathan T. Reem, Postdoctoral Researcher in the Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell UniversityEsperanza Shenstone, Research Specialist in the Boyce Thompson Institute, Cornell UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/960022018-05-22T10:45:04Z2018-05-22T10:45:04ZThese CRISPR-modified crops don’t count as GMOs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219842/original/file-20180521-14981-wcgftr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The lighter citrus plants have been edited using CRISPR to alter the phytoene desaturase (PDS) gene which gives them a white color. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yi Li</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To feed the burgeoning human population, it is vital that the world figures out ways to boost food production. </p>
<p>Increasing crop yields through conventional plant breeding is inefficient – the outcomes are unpredictable and it can take years to decades to create a new strain. On the other hand, powerful genetically modified plant technologies can quickly yield new plant varieties, but their adoption has been controversial. Many consumers and countries have rejected GMO foods even though <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">extensive studies</a> have proved they are safe to consume. </p>
<p>But now a new genome editing technology known as CRISPR may offer a good alternative.</p>
<p>I’m a plant geneticist and one of my top priorities is developing tools to engineer woody plants such as citrus trees that can resist the greening disease, Huanglongbing (HLB), which has devastated these trees around the world. First detected in Florida in 2005, the disease has decimated the state’s <a href="http://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2013/2/5/florida_citrus_indus.html">US$9 billion</a> citrus crop, leading to a <a href="https://fruitworldmedia.com/index.php/featured/citrus-greening-currently-dangerous-disease-citrus/">75 percent decline</a> in its orange production in 2017. Because citrus trees take five to 10 years before they produce fruits, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/s41438-018-0023-4">our new technique</a> – which has been nominated by many editors-in-chief as one of the <a href="https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/campaigns/change-the-world/life-sciences-biomedicine?from=message&isappinstalled=0">groundbreaking approaches of 2017</a> that has the potential to change the world – may accelerate the development of non-GMO citrus trees that are HLB-resistant. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219234/original/file-20180516-155573-1a0qi1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">HLB yellow dragon citrus greening disease has infected orchards in Florida and around the world devastating the citrus crops.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/orange-citrus-infected-hlb-yellow-dragon-1069345184?src=dkzHFhmHr50WYZRN9J-JMw-1-3">By Edgloris Marys/shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Genetically modified vs. gene edited</h2>
<p>You may wonder why the plants we create with our new DNA editing technique are not considered GMO? It’s a good question. </p>
<p>Genetically modified refers to plants and animals that have been altered in a way that wouldn’t have arisen naturally through evolution. A very obvious example of this involves transferring a gene from one species to another to endow the organism with a new trait – like pest resistance or drought tolerance. </p>
<p>But in our work, we are not cutting and pasting genes from animals or bacteria into plants. We are using genome editing technologies to introduce new plant traits by directly rewriting the plants’ genetic code. </p>
<p>This is faster and more precise than conventional breeding, is less controversial than GMO techniques, and can shave years or even decades off the time it takes to develop new crop varieties for farmers.</p>
<p>There is also another incentive to opt for using gene editing to create designer crops. On <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation">March 28, 2018</a>, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that the USDA wouldn’t regulate new plant varieties developed with new technologies like genome editing that would yield plants indistinguishable from those developed through traditional breeding methods. By contrast, a plant that includes a gene or genes from another organism, such as bacteria, is considered a GMO. This is another reason why many researchers and companies prefer using CRISPR in agriculture whenever it is possible. </p>
<h2>Changing the plant blueprint</h2>
<p>The gene editing tool we use is called CRISPR – which stands for “Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats” – and was adapted from the defense systems of bacteria. These bacterial CRISPR systems have been modified so that scientists like myself can edit the DNA of plants, animals, human cells and microorganisms. This technology can be used in many ways, including to correct genetic errors in humans that cause diseases, to engineer animals bred for disease research, and to create novel genetic variations that can accelerate crop improvement.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=732&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219835/original/file-20180521-14960-zyvgs4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=920&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yi Li inspects his CRISPR altered plants in his lab.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Xiaojing Wang</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To use CRISPR to introduce a useful trait into a crop plant, we need to know the genes that control a particular trait. For instance, <a href="https://bigpictureeducation.com/dwarf-breeds-plants">previous studies</a> have revealed that a natural plant hormone called gibberellin is essential for plant height. The GA20-ox gene controls the quantity of gibberellin produced in plants. To create a breed of “low mowing frequency” lawn grass, for example, we are editing the DNA – changing the sequence of the DNA that makes up gene – of this plant to reduce the output of the GA20-ox gene in the selected turf grass. With lower gibberellin, the grass won’t grow as high and won’t need to be mowed as often. </p>
<p>The CRISPR system was derived from bacteria. It is made up of two parts: Cas9, a little protein that snips DNA, and an RNA molecule that serves as the template for encoding the new trait in the plant’s DNA. </p>
<p>To use CRISPR in plants, the standard approach is to insert the CRISPR genes that encode the CRISPR-Cas9 “editing machines” into the plant cell’s DNA. When the CRISPR-Cas9 gene is active, it will locate and rewrite the relevant section of the plant genome, creating the new trait. </p>
<p>But this is a catch-22. Because to perform DNA editing with CRISPR/Cas9 you first have to genetically alter the plant with foreign CRISPR genes – this would make it a GMO.</p>
<h2>A new strategy for non-GMO crops</h2>
<p>For annual crop plants like corn, rice and tomato that complete their life cycles from germination to the production of seeds within one year, the CRISPR genes can be easily eliminated from the edited plants. That’s because some seeds these plants produce do not carry CRISPR genes, just the new traits. </p>
<p>But this problem is much trickier for perennial crop plants that require up to 10 years to reach the stage of flower and seed production. It would take too long to wait for seeds that were free of CRISPR genes. </p>
<p>My team at the University of Connecticut and my collaborators at <a href="http://english.njau.edu.cn/">Nanjing Agricultural University</a>, <a href="http://en.jaas.ac.cn/">Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences</a>, <a href="http://www.ufl.edu/">University of Florida</a>, <a href="http://en.changsha.gov.cn/study/Universities/201407/t20140717_612425.html">Hunan Agricultural University</a> and <a href="https://ucsd.edu/">University of California-San Diego</a> have recently developed a convenient, new technique to use CRISPR to reliably create desirable traits in crop plants without introducing any foreign bacterial genes. </p>
<p>We first engineered a naturally occurring soil microbe, <em>Agrobacterium</em>, with the CRIPSR genes. Then we take young leaf or shoot material from plants and mix them in petri dishes with the bacteria and allow them to incubate together for a couple of days. This gives the bacteria time to infect the cells and deliver the gene editing machinery, which then alters the plant’s genetic code. </p>
<p>In some <em>Agrobacterium</em> infected cells, the <em>Agrobacterium</em> basically serves as a Trojan horse, bringing all the editing tools into the cell, rather than engineering plants to have their own editing machinery. Because the bacterial genes or CRISPR genes do not become part of the plant’s genome in these cells – and just do the work of gene editing – any plants derived from these cells are not considered a GMO.</p>
<p>After a couple of days, we can cultivate plants from the edited plant cells. Then it take several weeks or months to grow an edited plant that could be planted on a farm. The hard part is figuring out which plants are successfully modified. But we have a solution to this problem too and have developed a method that takes only two weeks to identify the edited plants. </p>
<h2>Genetically designed lawns</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=206&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219785/original/file-20180521-14974-4wfuub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=259&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The shorter lawn grasses on the left (perennial ryegrass) need to be mowed less frequently than their conventional counterpart, shown on the right. The shorter grasses were produced using a traditional plant breeding technique. Yi Li is currently using the CRISPR technique to create grasses of other species that require less maintenance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yi Li</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One significant difference between editing plants versus human cells is that we are not as concerned about editing typos. In humans, such errors could cause disease, but off-target mutations in plants are not a serious concern. A number of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2014.11.007">published studies</a> reported low to negligible off-target activity observed in plants when compared to animal systems. </p>
<p>Also, before distributing any plants to farmers for planting in their field, the edited plants will be carefully evaluated for obvious defects in growth and development or their responses to drought, extreme temperatures, disease and insect attacks. Further, DNA sequencing of edited plants once they have been developed can easily identify any significant undesirable off-target mutations. </p>
<p>In addition to citrus, our technology should be applicable in most perennial crop plants such as apple, sugarcane, grape, pear, banana, poplar, pine, eucalyptus and some annual crop plants such as strawberry, potato and sweet potato that are propagated without using seeds. </p>
<p>We also see a role for genome editing technologies in many other plants used in the agricultural, horticultural and forestry industries. For example, we are creating lawn grass varieties that require less fertilizer and water. I bet you would like that too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96002/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yi Li receives funding from USDA and Citrus Research and Development Foundation. </span></em></p>GMO crops have been rejected by many countries and consumers. Now, an international team of researchers are creating better crops using DNA editing–without inserting foreign genes into the plant.Yi Li, Professor of Plant Science, University of ConnecticutLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.