» Articles » PMID: 36120531

Towards Social Acceptability of Genome-edited Plants in Industrialised Countries? Emerging Evidence from Europe, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan

Overview
Journal Front Genome Ed
Date 2022 Sep 19
PMID 36120531
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The agricultural biotechnology world has been divided into two blocks; countries adopting GM crops for commercial cultivation (adopters) and others without any or without relevant cultivation of such crops (non-adopters). Meanwhile, an increasing number of adopter countries have exempted certain genome-edited (GE) crops from legal GMO pre-market approval and labelling requirements. Among them are major exporters of agricultural commodities such as United States, Canada, and Australia. Due to the relaxed legislation more GE plants are expected to enter the market soon. Many countries in the non-adopter group, however, depend on import of large volumes of agricultural commodities from adopter countries. Unlike first generation GM, certain GE crops cannot be identified as unambiguously originating from genome editing using available techniques. Consequently, pressure is mounting on non-adopter jurisdictions to reconsider their policies and legislations. Against this backdrop, the paper explores recent developments relevant for social acceptability in selected non-adopters, Japan, New Zealand, the EU, Norway, and Switzerland in contrast to United States, Canada, and Australia. While Japan is already opening-up and Norway and Switzerland are discussing revisions of their policies, the EU and New Zealand are struggling with challenges resulting from high court decisions. In an attempt to take a closer look into the inner dynamics of these developments, the concept of social acceptability proposed by Wüstenhagen et al. (Energy Policy, 2007, 35(5), 2683-2691) is employed. This aids the understanding of developments in the jurisdictions considered and identifies specific or cross-cutting challenges.

Citing Articles

Molecular Farming for Immunization: Current Advances and Future Prospects in Plant-Produced Vaccines.

Vo D, Trinh K Vaccines (Basel). 2025; 13(2).

PMID: 40006737 PMC: 11860421. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines13020191.


Exploring the landscape of public attitudes towards gene-edited foods in Japan.

Yamaguchi T, Ezaki K, Ito K Breed Sci. 2024; 74(1):11-21.

PMID: 39246435 PMC: 11375427. DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.23047.


Revolutionizing Tomato Cultivation: CRISPR/Cas9 Mediated Biotic Stress Resistance.

Shawky A, Hatawsh A, Al-Saadi N, Farzan R, Eltawy N, Francis M Plants (Basel). 2024; 13(16).

PMID: 39204705 PMC: 11360581. DOI: 10.3390/plants13162269.


A comparative analysis of attitudes toward genome-edited food among Japanese public and scientific community.

Shineha R, Takeda K, Yamaguchi Y, Koizumi N PLoS One. 2024; 19(4):e0300107.

PMID: 38625915 PMC: 11020778. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300107.


The moderating role of perceived health risks on the acceptance of genetically modified food.

Cabelkova I, Sanova P, Hlavacek M, Broz D, Smutka L, Prochazka P Front Public Health. 2024; 11:1275287.

PMID: 38332939 PMC: 10851272. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1275287.


References
1.
Dederer H, Hamburger D . Are genome-edited micro-organisms covered by Directive 2009/41/EC?-implications of the CJEU's judgment in the case C-528/16 for the contained use of genome-edited micro-organisms. J Law Biosci. 2022; 9(1):lsab033. PMC: 8801222. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsab033. View

2.
Thygesen P . Clarifying the regulation of genome editing in Australia: situation for genetically modified organisms. Transgenic Res. 2019; 28(Suppl 2):151-159. DOI: 10.1007/s11248-019-00151-4. View

3.
Wozniak E, Tyczewska A, Twardowski T . A Shift Towards Biotechnology: Social Opinion in the EU. Trends Biotechnol. 2020; 39(3):214-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.08.001. View

4.
Eriksson D, Brinch-Pedersen H, Chawade A, Holme I, Hvoslef-Eide T, Ritala A . Scandinavian perspectives on plant gene technology: applications, policies and progress. Physiol Plant. 2017; 162(2):219-238. DOI: 10.1111/ppl.12661. View

5.
Schouten H, Krens F, Jacobsen E . Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants: international regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered to exempt cisgenesis. EMBO Rep. 2006; 7(8):750-3. PMC: 1525145. DOI: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400769. View