In late April or early May, members of the European Parliament will vote in a plenary session on the use of gene-edited crops in the European Union.

A “yes” vote seems likely because many politicians and policy makers are now touting the benefits of modern plant breeding, says the co-founder of a precision breeding company from California.

“I’ve spent a lot of time speaking to … authorities in Europe,” said Peter Beetham, chief executive officer of Cibus, a firm that develops and licenses plant traits to seed companies.

“I think they’ve recognized that the risks associated with gene editing are not doing (it).”

Why it Matters: Much of North America, South America and some key countries have approved gene edited crops. If Europe gets on board, global acceptance could be around the corner.

The technology involves changing the genetic code of a plant with tools like CRISPR-Cas9, a technique that can cut sections of DNA. Scientists from California and France won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of CRISPR.

It allows scientists to precisely change a plant’s DNA to achieve desired traits, such as improved disease resistance or healthier oil in the kernel.

Cibus plans to commercialize a trait in canola that provides resistance to sclerotinia, a fungal disease.

The technology should provide more seed options for growers and possibly more competition in the seed market. Smaller companies can use it to create crops with desirable traits in less time and with lower costs.

If the European Parliament passes the legislation, the EU will have a system where the majority of gene edited plants (without foreign DNA) will be treated the same as conventionally bred crops.

It will take a couple of years to implement the regulations, which means gene edited crops could be introduced in 2028 in Europe.

This embrace of biotechnology is a massive change in the EU.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, environmental groups railed against genetically modified crops, claiming they were a threat to human health and the environment. That message took hold in Europe with the public and political leaders, and the EU basically outlawed the cultivation of GM crops.

Much of the anger was directed at companies such as Monsanto. More than 25 years later, some organizations are still hostile to GMOs.

“We are opposed to GM crops since they lead to further privatization of life and ownership of seeds by powerful multinationals, taking control out of farmers’ hands,” say the Green parties of the European Parliament.

Such groups also oppose gene edited crops, for similar reasons, but their protests aren’t swaying European leaders.

Many politicians and bureaucrats have embraced gene edited plants. The European Council website touts the potential of the biotechnology, saying it could help farmers, the public and the environment.

“(Gene editing) can help breed plants which are climate-resilient or pest-resistant, require fewer fertilisers and pesticides… and plants with fewer allergens.”

Consequences for Canada?

The Canadian government has already approved gene editing, but public and private plant breeders have been reluctant to use it because of a concern about export markets.

If China or India won’t accept a gene edited canola or gene edited red lentil, it’s risky for Canadian farmers to grow such crops.

“Let’s face it, the ag industry is quite excited about this technology…. Farmers are excited about having more tools in the tool box,” said Greg Cherewyk, president of Pulse Canada in 2024.

“(But) the position really has to be — our key export markets are still reviewing the approach (to gene editing).”

Assuming Europe approves gene editing sometime this spring, it should have a ripple effect on global acceptance, Beetham said.

African and Asian countries that haven’t taken a position on gene edited crops would likely follow the European’s lead.

For Canada, China remains a large question mark. Would it import canola, hard red spring wheat or malt barley from Canada if it was developed with gene editing?

China has approved gene edited high-oleic soybeans and other crops for domestic production, but it’s taking a case by case approach to the technology, says the Global Gene Editing Regulation Tracker.

Beetham, however, isn’t worried about China.

“There is probably more gene editing in agriculture in China than anywhere else in the world…. They’ve already accepted it.”

As countries try to establish themselves as suitable places for development of gene-edited crops, there are questions about Canada’s ability to be a player.

Gene editing can help with production challenges with many crops, but local capacity is needed to solve regional problems.

Canadian guidance on gene-edited crops was announced in April.

“It’s great news that we finally have the guidance through and I think it’s very positive,” said Ellen Sparry, president of Seeds Canada and general manager of C&M Seeds, in an interview at the World Seed Congress in the Netherlands.

An Alberta wheat breeder at Agriculture Canada announced greenhouse tests of gene-edited wheat with drought tolerance shortly after the federal government released its guidance on gene editing.

“I was surprised, so I think it’s going to go a lot quicker than what we envision,” said Sparry, adding that she knows of another product submitted to CFIA that was on hold pending release of the regulations.

“The next question is, how many of them are on hold within the office? And how long is it going to take to clear those approvals?”

Private seed companies like to see a market from which they can recoup costs. That has resulted in less variety development in Western Canada, where royalties don’t have to be paid on saved seed, which farmers often use. That may have implications for the development of gene-editing infrastructure in Canada.

There are ways to capture farm-saved seed royalties, but use is controversial and not yet widespread.

Sparry said a trait would have to have enough value that farmers would be willing to pay a royalty for the seed.

“I don’t know how it’s going to evolve. I mean, we’re still pretty low on certified seed. My concern is, are we going to attract those companies to Canada based on their ability to capture return on their investment?”

Sparry said more small and medium-sized breeding companies are expected to enter the gene-editing game, and there are more companies of that size in Quebec.

It’s been three years since the merger of four seed sector organizations into Seeds Canada and Sparry said the organization is functioning well.

She is the founding president and said she’s in her last year in that position. The merger brought together the Canadian Seed Trade Association, the Canadian Plant Technology Agency, the Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada and the Canadian Seed Institute in 2021.

The Canadian Seed Growers Association voted not to join Seeds Canada and continues to function on its own.

Sparry said about half of staff time has been spent on national seed regulation modernization, a large project undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to open the regulations and learn what the seeds sector needs for the future. Members have also spent time on the regulations.

CFIA’s task forces have made 140 recommendations to the CFIA on seed modernization, including a request for an independent advisory body that can help make changes quicker than the time-consuming current update of the decades-old regulations.

“So the question is, has CFIA been given all they need to make the required changes we need to take Canada forward?” said Sparry.

The World Seed Congress brings together stakeholders in the global seed industry.

The critical difference is that gene-edited crops involve turning genes on and off within the genome without introducing genes from other species, as has been the case for genetically modified crops.

Canada is now green on global maps shown at the World Seed Congress in Rotterdam that indicate approval of gene editing. There’s regulatory certainty for gene-edited crops after regulations were announced in April. That means Canada can play a part in the rapid growth of innovation around the world.

The breakthrough to achieve clear gene-editing regulations required a lot of work by Canadian seed and crop groups. Krista Thomas, vice-president of trade policy and seed innovation with the Canadian Grains Council, said the Canadian process yielded a good result.

“I think Canada’s regulatory approach for gene editing is the best in the world because it’s pragmatic and it’s science-based and it maintains a product-based approach,” she said at the congress, where she was a panellist in a session on the state of gene editing regulations around the world.

There are already signs that innovations will come soon from new companies such as Pairwise in the United States. It is a six-year-old North Carolina company that employs 120 people and is working to submit products into the newly created regulations in various countries.

Pairwise was the first to have a gene-edited produce crop go to market in the United States, with its mustard greens in 2023. The company aims to make fruits and vegetables more attractive to people by such means as creating a pit-free cherry.

It is also working on higher-yielding corn and has achieved a 10 per cent increase after only two years of development, said Dan Jenkins, vice-president of regulatory and government affairs for Pairwise.

Other parts of the world are also growing their ability in gene editing. In Africa, there’s a concerted effort to develop the lab and human capacity to work on it. Eight countries in the African Union allow the practice.

New European regulations are pushing seed companies to find ways of coating seeds without using materials that end up as microplastics in the environment.

Microplastics occur when plastics break down. They persist because the polymers aren’t soluble in water and don’t degrade. There’s increasing concern about the volume of microplastics in the global environment.

Polymers are used to ensure the crop protection product flows precisely onto the seed and sticks to it. They also reduce dust as seeds run through a planter, said Rob Pronk, global marketing manager with Incotec, which provides seed treatment products to seed companies.

The agriculture sector is a small contributor to microplastics, but “we feel responsibility to do something about this,” says Bert Compaan, research manager of seed pathology at Bejo Zaden, a Dutch seed company.

He is on an International Seed Federation committee that created a position paper on seed treatments that calls for elimination of microplastics. Campaan was on a panel at the recent seed congress in the Netherlands.

The European Union’s legislation on microplastics, passed in October 2023, gives companies five years to find replacements for products without active ingredients and eight years to replace polymers in crop protection products.

The global seed sector is also getting serious about use of illegal seed. A memorandum of understanding was signed at the congress involving 13 organizations focused on stopping its use. The group includes the Seed Association of the Americas, in which Canada is a member.

While there is concern about farmers saving privately developed seeds in Canada, those challenges pale in comparison to other parts of the world. Canada is unique in that much of the wheat seed grown in Western Canada is from public breeding programs.

There’s more concern about non-farmers who collect and resell seed for their profit.

Antonio Villaroel, managing director of Gestión de Licencias Vegetales, an organization in Spain, said that of 750 cases his group has taken to court over the past 30 years, only about 12 were farmers. Of greater concern are other industry sellers of illegal seed, including cooperatives, grain traders and seed dealers.

In Brazil, Diego Risso, executive director of the Seed Association of the Americas, says about 40 per cent of soybeans planted could be illegally grown.

Globally, the regulatory situation looks hopeful, said Krista Thomas, vice-president of trade policy and seed innovation with the Canada Grains Council.

But in many cases the regulations for gene edited plants are untested.

“Most countries that have put in place rules … for gene-edited products have confirmed that (they) are not GMOs,” said Thomas, who spoke at a plant technology conference in England in late May.

“(But) some of our key export markets still have some uncertainty attached to them.”

Gene editing is a relatively new technology that allows scientists to precisely cut and delete sections of DNA.

Canada has decided that gene edited crops will be regulated more like conventional plant breeding, provided the plant doesn’t contain foreign DNA.

The United States, Australia, Japan, Argentina and other countries are also moving forward with gene-edited crops.

India has adopted rules similar to Canada, but the situation in China is “vague,” Thomas said.

“It does fall under the GMO umbrella (of regulations), but it does indicate that gene edited plants will have a faster and lighter regulatory process.”

In five cases, China’s government has approved gene-edited products that were developed in China. It’s hopeful that Chinese scientists are using the technology because it should help with consumer trust within the country.

But how China and India will respond to a gene-edited wheat or lentil developed in another country remains a mystery.

“We won’t really know how these (regulatory) systems are going to work until some products go through (the system),” Thomas said.

The approval of gene-edited crops in critical export markets for Canada should be simpler than transgenic crops. However, global issues around food, trade and protectionism are not going away.

“There’s always a risk of any country using seed innovation as a non-tariff (trade) barrier,” Thomas said.

Regulations are one thing, but consumer acceptance is also critical.

Some experts, such as Kevin Folta, believe the sales pitch will be easier with gene editing because it can help with human health.

Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved gene editing to treat sickle cell disease, a rare, genetic mutation that causes red blood cells to develop a crescent or “sickle” shape.

The misshapen cells restrict flow in blood vessels and limit oxygen delivery to the body’s tissues, causing severe pain and damage to organs.

“Gene therapy holds the promise of delivering more targeted and effective treatments, especially for individuals with rare diseases where the current treatment options are limited,” Nicole Verdun of the FDA said in a news release.

That sort of medical innovation will have a big influence on public perceptions, said Folta, a University of Florida plant scientist.

“I think you’ll see a very strong acceptance of these technologies.”

Thomas is less convinced.

“It’s just my personal opinion … but people think about food differently than health care,” she said.

“It’s true that gene editing offers a lot of promise for curing certain medical conditions. I don’t really know if that’s going to help with consumer acceptance.”

What could help is using the technology in a way that makes sense for Joe Public, Thomas said.

An example could be a gene-edited wheat crop that is free of gluten.

“Demonstrating a clear benefit for consumers is what’s going to make the difference.”

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

Cibus is one company doing a lot of work on that front and is expected to commercialize three new traits in Canada before the end of this decade.

Related stories:

• Durable sclerotinia resistance built into canola
• Strike early when fighting kochia in canola

The first one to market will be its pod-shatter resistance trait, which has been extensively field tested and placed into germplasm provided by a variety of seed companies.

The trait could be commercialized as early as next year in the United States, said Norm Sissons, senior vice-president of seeds and traits with Cibus.

It will take a little longer to arrive in Canada due to the country’s variety registration system.

Keith Fournier, chair of the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission, said the pod shatter trait is essential for any new variety release these days.

“Even if we’re not straight cutting, it allows us to delay swathing and just get more seed size, more bushel weight and more bushels out of that variety,” he said.

Sclerotinia resistance is the next trait Cibus intends to commercialize.

“That one is really exciting,” said Sissons.

“We see this as potentially the first sclerotinia trait that will largely eliminate fungicide application for most growers.”

Sclerotinia resistance has been a tough nut to crack for conventional breeders because it does not naturally exist for many crops.

And it has not been a practical trait to develop via genetic modification.

A recent study shows developing and commercializing a GM crop takes an average of 16.5 years and costs US$115 million. That is not a good use of time and money for a trait that constantly needs to stay ahead of the pathogen.

A gene-edited trait takes three to five years to make it to market.

Fournier said sclerotinia takes more money out of farmers’ pockets than any other disease, and it is difficult to properly time spraying.

A variety with good resistance would eliminate one of the big headaches for growers.

“We’d be able to go to the lake in the summer instead of spraying a fungicide on our canola,” he said.

Cibus is in the process of evaluating multiple modes of action for combating the disease.

“We’re trying to determine what are the most impactful ones that can give the best product in the simplest way and in the fastest time,” said Sissons.

Some initial modes of action were field tested last year, but the “best ones” are just coming through the final greenhouse evaluations and will be in field trials next year.

The company will be concurrently introducing those traits into germplasm supplied by interested seed companies.

The third trait to market will be Cibus’s HT2 herbicide tolerance trait.

Sissons could not yet divulge what the active ingredient is in the HT trait, but the company has already field tested an early version of it.

Improved versions of the trait are in greenhouse evaluations this year and will be field tested next year.

It will provide canola growers with enhanced broadleaf weed control and address the herbicide resistance issues that are plaguing the glyphosate and glufosinate systems.

Fournier said there is a dire need for new chemistries to deal with mounting resistance issues.

He said there is a particular need for a chemistry that can control kochia, which has become resistant to glyphosate.

Glufosinate offers effective control, but it would be good to have another chemistry on the market for that troublesome weed, said Fournier.

Cibus launched a sulfonylurea tolerant canola in North America in 2016, but it failed to capture much market share and is no longer sold by the company.

That trait was developed using mutagenesis, not gene editing.

“Suffice to say, what we’re working on today is quite different than that,” said Sissons.

The HT2 trait is at the same stage of development as the sclerotinia resistance trait, but it will take longer to get to market because the chemical must go through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s registration process.

“That’s an added step that needs to happen with herbicide tolerance,” he said.

Both traits are expected to be commercialized in Canada in 2027-30.

The traits will be priced according to what value they deliver to farmers.

For instance, the sclerotinia resistance trait will be based on how much farmers are expected to save in fungicide costs.

Rory Riggs, Cibus’s chief executive officer, recently said during a BMO Capital Markets presentation that the sclerotinia trait could fetch US$10 per acre when it is commercialized in soybeans.

Riggs had a slide showing the target market royalties for all three canola traits. The pod shatter resistance was pegged at $200 million, HT2 at $225 million and sclerotinia at $300 million.

Sissons said about half of the canola acres today contain existing pod shatter traits, leaving the other half up for grabs.

The sclerotinia resistance trait will depend on the number of affected acres, which typically ranges from one-third to one-half of the crop, although it has been less of late due to drought.

The HT2 trait will be sold wherever there are herbicide resistance issues, an area that keeps expanding every year.

Gene-edited crops are regulated the same as conventional crops in Canada and the U.S. There is also draft legislation in the European Union that “looks positive,” but that will likely take another year or two to be finalized, he said.

Contact sean.pratt@producer.com

Gene editing is a permitted technology in Canada and in India, a critical export market for pulse crops. However, researchers and pulse industry leaders are hesitant to release gene-edited varieties because they’re worried about market acceptance.

Related story: Gene editing may be entering a new world order

For instance, National Research Council scientists in Saskatoon have used the technology to “knock out” genes that give peas an off-taste and beany flavour. However, they have hit the brakes on the project because consumers may not accept a gene-edited pea — even one that tastes better.

“The resulting gene-edited lines (of peas) have not yet been tested for their flavour profile,” Tom Warkentin, a University of Saskatchewan plant breeder who specializes in field peas, said in an email.

“And even if they have an improved flavour profile, we won’t commercialize them in the current cautious environment around gene editing.”

The breeding tool involves changing the genetic code of a plant with technology such as CRISPR-Cas9, a technique that can cut sections of DNA. Scientists from California and France won the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of CRISPR.

It allows scientists to precisely change a plant’s DNA to achieve desired traits, such as improved disease resistance or healthier oil in the kernel.

Federal regulators in Canada, India, the United States and other countries have approved the development of gene-edited crops, but consumers in Chicago or New Delhi may be hesitant to eat a gene-edited pulse crop from Saskatchewan.

So, Canada’s pulse industry is taking a go-slow approach. It may not release gene-edited varieties in Western Canada until there’s more certainty around market risk.

“I don’t want to say cautious. That’s a negative connotation,” said Greg Cherewyk, president of Pulse Canada.

“We have to be highly aware of how this landscape is evolving … and be on top of everything related to market acceptance.”

A portion of the lentils and peas grown on the Prairies are exported to India and China. India’s government is fully embracing gene-edited crops as a way to improve food security, Cherewyk said.

“This has become part of their national biotech development strategy. It is clearly something they see as important…. They’re looking at high vitamin A bananas and high-yielding rice, improved mustard varieties.”

As well, last year China approved the safety of a gene-edited soybean variety “as the country increasingly looks to science to boost food production,” Reuters reported.

However, government approval is not the same as consumer acceptance. Importers of pulse crops in countries such as India and China may have a better sense of public perceptions around biotechnology.

“The market acceptance piece extends to, what are our buyers hearing? What are their feelings with respect to gene edited crops?” Cherewyk said from his office in Winnipeg.

“The key thing for us is understanding … how will this be treated when it lands in one of our priority markets.”

Stuart Smyth, a University of Saskatchewan professor and expert in agri-food innovation, agreed with Cherewyk’s assessment.

There could be a gap between regulatory approval and public acceptance in places such as India.

“India over the last two years … has made strong public statements (in support of) gene editing,” Smyth said.

“(But) what are those (pulse) importers (thinking)? Will they have a different perspective on what’s coming from Canada, versus what they’re buying domestically? That’s the $64,000 question.”

Avoid risk or move first?

If India is developing gene edited crops, including peas and lentils, it seems logical that they would accept similar crops from Canada, Smyth added.

“But we know at times in agriculture, logic sometimes takes second place.”

The market uncertainty is a dilemma for crop developers and Canada’s pulse industry.

If Canada waits on the sidelines, Australia may develop a gene-edited lentil with higher yields and improved quality and capture a larger share of the Indian market.

Or India could go the other way. Importers could reject the gene-edited lentils and Australia could lose sales to India.

“This is the big challenge right now. You need to see products go through the system to fully understand how they’re going to be treated,” Cherewyk said.

However, the technology could also benefit Canadian farmers, such as a gene-edited pea with resistance to root rot.

It means Canada’s pulse industry, and the entire grain sector, needs to find a balance — make use of the best available plant breeding tools but in a way that doesn’t jeopardize market access.

“Let’s face it, the ag industry is quite excited about this technology…. Farmers are excited about having more tools in the tool box,” Cherewyk said.

“(But) the position really has to be — our key export markets are still reviewing the approach (to gene editing).”

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

There are now enough of the major crop-producing regions in the world with a pathway to market for gene-edited crops to start to drive new products.

This is expected to create a race to market for products, which will not have to go through the arduous, costly and time-consuming pathway for genetically modified crops.

Related story from this event: VIDEO: World Seed Congress addresses global supply chain challenges

The critical difference is that gene-edited crops involve turning on and off genes within the genome of the crop, without introducing genes from other species, as has been the case for genetically modified crops.

Canada is now green on global maps shown at the World Seed Congress in Rotterdam. There’s regulatory certainty for gene-edited crops after regulations were announced in April. That means Canada can play a part the rapid growth of innovation around the world.

It’s been a lot of work for Canadian seed and crop groups to continue to push the need for clear gene-editing regulations.

Krista Thomas, vice president of trade policy and seed innovation with the Canadian Grains Council said the outcome of the Canadian process yielded a good result.

“I think Canada’s regulatory approach for gene editing is the best in the world because it’s pragmatic and it’s science-based and it maintains a product-based approach,” she said at the World Seed Congress where she was a panellist in a session on the state of gene editing regulations around the world.

There are already signs that a lot of the innovations will come early on from new companies, such as Pairwise in the United States. Pairwise is a six-year-old North Carolina company that now employs 120 people and is working to submit early products into the newly created regulations in countries around the world.

Pairwise was the first to have a gene-edited produce crop go to market in the United States, with its mustard greens in 2023. The company aims to make fruits and vegetables more attractive to people, such as working to create a pit-free cherry. Pairwise is also working on higher-yielding corn, with an about 10 per cent increase, after only two years of development, said Dan Jenkins, vice president of Regulatory and Government Affairs for Pairwise.

Other parts of the world are also growing their ability in gene editing. In Africa, there’s a concerted effort to develop the lab and human capacity to work on gene editing, with eight countries in the African Union with regulations that allow gene editing.

Europe targets microplastics in seed coatings

New European regulations are pushing seed companies to find ways of coating seeds without using materials that end up as microplastics in the environment.

Microplastics occur when plastics break down and are persistent in the environment, meaning that the polymers aren’t soluble in water and don’t degrade. There’s increasing concern about the volume of microplastics being found in the environment around the world.

Polymers are used to help ensure the crop protection product flows precisely onto the seed and then sticks to the seed. They also help reduce dust from the products as the seeds run through a planter, said Rob Pronk, global marketing manager with Incotec, which provides seed treatment products to seed companies.

The agriculture sector is a small contributor to microplastics, but “we feel responsibility to do something about this,” says Bert Compaan, research manager of seed pathology at Bejo Zaden, a Dutch seed company. He is on an International Seed Federation committee that created a position paper on microplastics in seed treatments that calls for the elimination of the practice.

Campaan was part of a panel at the ISF’s World Seed Congress recently in the Netherlands.

The European Union’s legislation on microplastics was passed in October 2023 and gives companies five years to find replacements for products without active ingredients and eight years for the polymers in crop protection products.

New agreement targets illegal seed use

The global seed sector getting serious about the use of illegal seed.

A memorandum of understanding was signed at the World Seed Congress involving 13 organizations from around the world focused on stopping the illegal use of seed.

The group includes the Seed Association of the Americas, where Canada is a member.

While there is some concern about farmers saving privately developed seeds in Canada, the challenges in Canada pale compared to other parts of the world. Canada is unique in that much of the wheat seed grown in Western Canada is from public breeding programs.

There’s more concern with non-farmers who are collecting and reselling seed for their profit.

Antonio Villaroel, managing director of Gestión de Licencias Vegetales (GESLIVE), an organization in Spain, said that of 750 cases his group has taken to court over the past 30 years, only about 12 were farmers.

Of greater concern are other industry sellers of illegal seed including some cooperatives, grain traders and seed dealers.

In Brazil, Diego Risso, executive director of the Seed Association of the Americas, says about 40 per cent of soybeans planted could be illegally grown.

The announcement was made at the International Seed Federation’s World Seed Congress where deal-making on seed is common, with a large room with 300 tables kept busy over three days.

Marco van Leeuwen, outgoing president of the ISF, says that the organization also has work to do to clean up what happens around the congress, and companies and individuals who are found to support the sales of illegal seed won’t be allowed at the congress.

The experimental wheat is being grown in a small field trial at the Lethbridge Research and Development Centre.

Related stories:

• Opposition to gene edited crops ‘getting weaker’
• The road to acceptance for gene editing

The goal is to produce spring wheat lines with greater ability to receive and use sunlight, according to an Alberta Farmer Express article.

A wheat industry leader is pleased with the development.

“I think it’s fantastic,” said Gunter Jochum, president of the Wheat Growers Association.

“It’s good for our industry and it is exactly what’s needed going forward.”

He said he has spoken to scientists who say “the sky is the limit” when it comes to the potential for gene-edited crops.

“That’s what’s exciting, and Canada needs to be right at the forefront in developing that,” said Jochum.

Ian Affleck, vice-president of plant biotechnology with CropLife Canada, said the federal government’s recent decision to treat gene-edited crops the same as conventionally bred crops paved the way for the project.

He expects many more gene-edited wheat projects will follow because the cost is significantly less than trying to commercialize a line of genetically modified wheat.

It takes $120 to $130 million and 16 years to bring a GM crop to market compared to $1 to $5 million and five to seven years for a gene-edited crop.

“It’s a big difference,” he said.

But gene editing has its limitations.

“If you’re just trying to up-regulate or down-regulate something that the plant already does or could do, that’s where gene editing really excels,” said Affleck.

That’s why the technology is being deployed around the world to create drought tolerance or disease resistance traits.

However, it can’t be used to introduce traits from other plants, such as the Bt insect tolerance trait in corn.

So, there is still a place for GM crops.

Bioceres just began distributing its GM wheat seeds to crop input retailers in Argentina for commercial production of the crop.

The company’s HB4 wheat was approved for cultivation in Argentina in 2020 and by Brazil in 2023. The drought tolerant wheat also has food and feed approval in a variety of export markets.

The only other GM wheat to receive regulatory approval was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready wheat, which received food approval by Australia, Colombia, New Zealand and the United States, as well as feed approval by the U.S.

However, the crop was never approved for cultivation due to a backlash by farmers and consumers. Monsanto subsequently shelved its GM wheat project in 2004.

Affleck said attitudes have changed in the ensuing 20 years because GM crops are now commonplace and there is a growing need for the technology to tackle mounting agronomic problems.

“There was a clear need for a drought-resistant technology in Argentina,” he said.

“They’re having some really significant droughts there.”

Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator recently approved field trials of GM wheat and barley modified for yield enhancement by the University of Adelaide.

That is the only other GM wheat Affleck is aware of. There were recent headlines that China had approved GM wheat trials, but that turned out to be gene-edited wheat.

Contact sean.pratt@producer.com

The feds did an admirable job of finding balance in a thorny issue.

Much of the agricultural industry has been clamouring for Ottawa to confirm that it will not treat gene editing the same as genetic modification when it comes to approving new crop varieties.

The government was a little late to the party, but finally acted.

Last year it decided that gene-edited crops would not be required to go through the same approval process as plants with novel traits, making it quicker and easier for companies using gene editing technology to bring new varieties to market.

Earlier this month, it made the same decision regarding plant breeding.

The agriculture industry was generally pleased with this long-overdue decision, but the organic sector remained a sticking point.

Organic production places gene editing in the same boat as genetic modification — both are off limits.

Treating the new technology the same as conventional plant breeding makes organic farmers nervous, and for good reason. Without knowing if the seeds they grow have been produced using gene editing technology, they risk jeopardizing their markets and losing certification.

To its credit, the federal government seems to have understood this.

Ottawa was pretty much ready to pull the trigger on its plant breeding guidance last fall when organic farmers sounded the alarm about risks to their industry.

The government delayed an announcement and spent the winter looking for solutions. The guidance it released earlier this month shows the results. It took three steps:

• Seeds Canada will strengthen its database to clearly identify production methods.
• A government-industry steering committee that includes organic representation will establish clear procedures and control measures for the database.
• The government will establish monitoring procedures that ensure the database is accurate and reliable.

There is also a commitment to financially support the review of Canada’s organic standards scheduled for 2025.

None of this has fully satisfied the organic sector.

It says the measures aren’t mandatory and questions the clout of the proposed steering committee.

Even so, it’s a good first step. Regulators didn’t ignore the organic sector, as they might have done 25 years ago.

They recognized that organics is a $9.25 billion a year industry in this country and deserves attention.

However, the government also knew it couldn’t jeopardize the entire agriculture industry in an attempt to completely satisfy organic producers. It needed to find a balance by walking a line between the two sectors.

There is more work to be done, and not just on organics.

Food and plant breeding have now been ticked off the government’s to-do list, but the livestock industry is still waiting for its own guidance on feeding gene-edited crops to animals. Though government says this is coming, it should be done as soon as possible.

For the most part, however, it looks like the government got it right on this file.

Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen and Mike Raine collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.