ECJ on the new selection method: Is the genetic claw also a genetic engineering?

With the gene scissors technique, plant varieties can be selected more specifically. The European Court of Justice will decide tomorrow whether the procedure is genetic engineering – and therefore indirectly its future.

Oda Lambrecht, NDR

Higher yielding crops adapted to climate change, resistant to fungi and pests – this is the Breeder promise of recently discovered techniques. These are tiny tools made of protein molecules – also known as gene scissors.

Breeders can thus cut into the genetic makeup of a plant in the laboratory and thus change the genetic information. With such gene scissors, new varieties can be developed more quickly and more cost-effectively than was possible up to now with conventional breeding methods.

However, the plants produced up to here are not grown in German fields. Because it is still unclear whether new farming techniques are genetically modified or not. The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) now wants to decide in Luxembourg

If the ECJ clbadifies the new procedures in genetic engineering, all the plants thus modified will have to undergo a complete risk badessment before their approval, before deciding on the date. land on German fields and plates.

No security check is needed?

On the other hand, if the judgment is based on the findings of the relevant Advocate General, some of the new procedures could not be covered by the Genetic Engineering Act. Plants produced with them could then be marketed without additional safety testing and labeling.

The Friction Point: According to the so-called EU release directive, an organism is clbadified as genetically modified if its genetic material has been altered in a natural way that is not possible. This is the case, for example, when breeders combine a plant with a bacterium in the laboratory, thus introducing non-native information of the bacterium into the genome of the plant.

Result as in the plants derived from the plant. Conventional breeding

is called CrisprCas – but it is also possible to specifically rewrite the genetic material of a plant without introducing foreign matter. Such changes could also be achieved using conventional breeding methods, says the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). Therefore, the result is not genetically modified organisms.

A similar position is also held by the National Academy of Sciences in Halle: In a statement, he points out that the plants obtained with the new methods may not be conventionally grown. out. For similar changes in genetic material would also be produced by previous selection methods such as the use of chemicals or radioactive radiation.

Ralf Wilhelm of the Julius-Kühn Institute of Braunschweig sees no higher risk than with the new methods in conventional breeding. Wilhelm heads the Department of Biotechnology Security at the Federal Research Center

. He sees above all advantages. Unlike conventional methods, it is possible to achieve breeding objectives much more quickly with gene scissors

Federal Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner (CDU) refuses to comment on legal clbadification before the ECJ decision, but underlines the "potential for innovation" of new technologies such as CrisprCas face global challenges such as climate change and the diet of soon more than nine billion people.

However, the Federal Ministry of the Environment (BMU) of its colleague Svenja Schulze (SPD) points out the potential risks of new technologies. Even small changes in genetic material could have big effects, according to a spokesperson. The spread of modified plants with harmful effects on natural habitats should therefore be excluded. Therefore, the BMU requires regulation of organisms produced according to the precautionary principle

. He is followed by genetic engineering expert Christoph Then from the nonprofit organization Testbiotech. Although such changes are successful and accurate, the effects on the body could be very different from those expected. Then there were no suitable methods to monitor the long-term effects.

Companies are already investing

Plant improvement companies, on the other hand, are eager to hope for as little regulation as possible. They are already investing in new techniques, exploring them in their laboratories and greenhouses. They underline the possibilities and hope of good business

If the new methods were to be clbadified as genetic engineering companies, they should go through lengthy and expensive licensing procedures. In case they are afraid of inconvenience in international competition. For example, the United States does not want to regulate such modified plants. And anyway, companies in Germany do not see much luck for such products anyway because most people here reject genetically modified foods until now.