By Rajiv Shah
Growing apprehensions over the safety and regulation of genome editing in agriculture have reportedly received "validation" from peer-reviewed scientific studies, backed by civil society advocacy efforts. The Union Government’s recent announcement of gene-edited rice varieties has triggered critical responses, notably from the Coalition for a GM-Free India, which hosted a webinar to assess the implications of gene editing in Indian agriculture. The session, moderated by noted activist Kavitha Kuruganti, brought together scientists and agroecology practitioners who cautioned against the premature rollout of gene-edited crops without robust biosafety assessments.
Dr Krithika Yegna, a biotechnologist formerly affiliated with the Centre for Biotechnology at Anna University, emphasized that genome editing technologies like Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) are not as precise or predictable as often claimed. In her detailed presentation, she highlighted growing evidence that such edits can result in large-scale genetic damage, citing multiple peer-reviewed studies showing off-target mutations, unintended insertions, and complex genomic rearrangements. These risks, she argued, demand stringent regulatory oversight rather than exemptions from existing GMO norms.
Echoing these concerns, agroecologist Soumik Banerjee spoke about the socio-economic and ecological implications of introducing gene-edited rice varieties. He drew attention to how such technologies threaten India’s indigenous seed diversity and undermine farmer autonomy. He stressed that the central issue is not just scientific risk but also the disruption of existing sustainable agricultural practices rooted in biodiversity and community knowledge systems.
These public concerns, says GM Free India in a detailed note, resonate with mounting international scientific findings. Thus, Research by Kosicki et al. (2018) and Höijer et al. (2021) has demonstrated that CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing can result in extensive deletions, insertions, and chromosomal damage in human and animal cells. Samach et al. (2023) extended this evidence to plants, finding that CRISPR editing caused chromothripsis-like effects in tomatoes—a catastrophic rearrangement of genetic material that could have dire consequences for crop biochemistry and food safety.
In gene-edited rice, specifically, a study by Biswas et al. (2020) revealed a wide array of unintended on-target and off-target mutations, including large deletions and rearrangements, even when using supposedly stable transformation methods. The findings underscored the unpredictability of gene editing, which could impact not only the targeted traits but also unintended gene functions, possibly resulting in toxic or allergenic compounds.
During the webinar, both Dr Yegna and Banerjee urged policymakers to heed the global body of research calling for caution. They pointed to the need for long-read genome sequencing, environmental risk assessments, and mandatory food safety trials before any commercial release. GM-Free India’s documentation accompanying the webinar further underlines the importance of democratising science and empowering farmer communities in decisions that directly affect their seeds, livelihoods, and ecosystems.
Studies from Europe reinforce these views, says GM Free India. A 2023 review by Koller et al. in Environmental Sciences Europe asserted that new genomic techniques (NGTs) can produce both intended and unintended genetic effects, which may interact in unpredictable ways when released into shared environments. Another review by Eckerstorfer et al. (2021) warned that the assumed precision of gene editing is misleading and that gene-edited organisms must be subject to full biosafety scrutiny under GMO frameworks.
The advocacy by GM-Free India thus seeks to align with global scientific consensus urging caution. Robinson, Antoniou, and Fagan (2018) note, there is no scientific consensus on GMO safety, and the same applies to new gene-editing methods. With insufficient empirical data on food safety and environmental effects, especially in gene-edited plants, moving forward without regulation would be both premature and potentially hazardous.
In conclusion, the convergence of scientific evidence and grassroots advocacy paints a clear picture, believes the advocacy group: genome editing is neither inherently safe nor sufficiently understood to warrant deregulation. The Indian government’s push for gene-edited rice must be re-evaluated in light of these warnings, it insists. Both the precautionary principle and democratic accountability demand that such powerful technologies be subject to rigorous, transparent, and independent oversight before they are allowed into farmers’ fields and citizens’ food plates.
Comments