Australia’s genetic modification laws are in line for a shake up in response to new technologies.

Australia's gene technology regulator Raj Bhula has completed a 12 month review of current regulations, and proposed reducing certain conditions on gene editing techniques such as CRISPR.

The most dramatic of the proposed changes is to reclassify some technologies as ‘gene editing’, not ‘genetic modification’.

Gene editing describes the editing of existing material within an organism, not adding foreign genetic material into another organism.

 Experts say will help to dramatically speed up health and agriculture research. 

“This dramatic proposal is expected to face fierce opposition and generate a robust debatable since technically removing a portion of a gene is still considered ‘genetic modification’,” says Dr Clovis Palmer, head of the Immunometabolism and Inflammation Laboratory at Melbourne’s Burnet Institute.

“For example removal of a single genetic code from an otherwise non-pathogenic fungus could interfere with how that gene interacts with others, allowing it to become pathogenic.
 
“Biological processes are a consequence of genes working together within a network, so modification of gene within that network are likely to have unintended and sometimes deleterious consequences.

“The gene editing technology in question is a process that allows laboratory researchers to ‘cut out’ portions of a gene from cells grown in the lab or in some cases completely removing a particular gene and then observing the consequences.

“The technology is likely to have significant long-term benefits in medicine and agriculture but current claimed benefits are perhaps overemphasised.

“The technology is still in its infancy and should continue to be highly scrutinized under rigorous federal authorities that govern GMOs,” he said.

The impact on agriculture will be significant too, according to director of the WA State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre, Professor Michael Jones.

“All the food we eat - with the exception of ‘bush tucker’ - has been genetically modified over time, first by early farmers then more systematically using Mendelian Genetics, cytogenetic transfer of chromosome segments, wide crosses, chemical and irradiation mutagenesis, molecular marker-assisted breeding and more recently by transgenic technologies,” he said.

“It is a scientific paradox that we know less about what new genetic combinations occur in conventional plant breeding, which is unregulated, than we do for new breeding technologies, which are highly regulated.

“With 20 years’ experience of the safe use of GM crops, which now account for 10% of the world’s food production, it’s time to bring gene technology regulations up-to-date. Varieties developed by harsh mutagenic treatments are grown without regulation and are often labelled as non-GM in organic stores.

“Gene editing is a major advance which allows changes in specific genes to be made much more precisely than conventional mutagenesis. As a result, gene technology regulations are now out of date and no longer fit for purpose.

“If there is no introduced DNA, or the changes are the same as those resulting from current unregulated breeding technologies, then the products should not be regulated as GMOs.

“That would be a real game changer for Australian crop improvement, which is being held back by red tape and excessive regulation at the moment.”