Since CRISPR was first described in 2005, the gene editing technology’s potential impact on agriculture, human health and the environment has been covered more and more each day.

As Eric Niler writes in a piece for National Geographic, “one way to measure the rise of Crispr and other forms of gene-editing is by scientific publication. From two dozen journal articles in all of 2008, Crispr-related scientific-paper submissions now number 10 per day, and will shortly reach 10,000 total.”

And while a good majority of those studies focus on CRISPR’s human health applications, a significant amount of research has been dedicated to discovering CRISPR’s potential impact on agriculture.

In his piece, “Why Gene Editing Is the Next Food Revolution,” Niler includes an infographic that explores examples of how CRISPR is going to led to real benefits in agriculture – benefits that can help sustain the food supply, reduce food waste and promote environmental health.

Let’s dive into seven of the crops included above, looking at why gene editing is being considered for each.

Chocolate

Cacao trees thrive in tropical environments – specifically regions that are 20 degrees north and 20 degrees south of the equator. Fungi and viruses also thrive in these environments. Unfortunately, this has put the world’s supply of chocolate at risk as entire cacao tree farms are being infected. Compounding this epidemic is climate change, which is expanding environmental conditions ideal for fungi and viruses. Using CRISPR, however, scientists funded by the popular candy brand Mars are hoping to edit the trees’ DNA to withstand fungal and viral diseases in an increasingly warmer world.

Bananas

Following the geopolitical shift that resulted from World War II, the banana industry experienced its own seismic change. In the 1950s, the popular Gros Michel banana had been essentially wiped out globally by Panama disease, a blight that blackens bananas from the inside out. Replacing this popular variety was the less-delicious Cavendish banana, which fills produce sections today. Now the Cavendish banana is under threat from a new incarnation of Panama disease, in addition to other diseases like banana wilt spreading throughout Uganda. Through gene editing, however, scientists are hoping to turn on the gene that enables the Cavendish to resist the blight,  saving the popular fruit from possible extinction.

Grapes

Downy mildew, a powdery fungal disease that destroys grape vines, is costing grape growers nearly $200 million a year to combat. Moreover, the fungal disease is threatening to take down the wine industry as it overtakes vineyards across the west coast. Like bananas, however, scientists are encouraged by the promise of gene editing to alter the genes of grapes (this time turning a gene off) to make it less vulnerable to disease. Not only would wine lovers rejoice, but grape growers would save millions in chemicals to fight the spread of the mildew.

Tomatoes

Surprising to some, the tomato was the first genetically engineered crop to be commercialized. The FLAVR SAVR tomato, as its name suggests, was genetically engineered to have a longer shelf life and better taste. The tomato did not have commercial success; however, geneticists are continuing to study the vegetable fruit, identifying critical flavors that can be gene edited into modern varieties. 

Corn

Corn may be the most recognized GM crop. Today, there are several varieties of GM corn with traits such as insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. And rightfully so. Corn is used for much more than food. The crop is used as feed for livestock, biofuels for our cars, starch, alcohol and other industrial uses. Considering its broad use, it’s critical that corn continue to be able to grow as the climate changes. To ensure this is the case, scientists have identified a gene that allows the crop to produce more grain under drought conditions which they will look to incorporate into modern varieties.

Mushroom

Similar to what has been accomplished with potatoes, researchers are hoping  gene editing can reduce browning and increase shelf life for mushrooms. Gene editing holds tremendous promise to reduce food waste by increasing the time crops stay fresh and enhancing their outward appearance. This is significant considering the amount of food that is wasted each year: enough to feed up to 300 million people, according to the Untied Nations.

Wheat

Gluten sensitivities may seem like a new fad but, for those with celiac disease, gluten is a very real threat to human health. Luckily, scientists are studying gene editing as a method to lower gluten proteins in wheat, resulting in reduced-gluten wheat which may be agreeable for those with gluten sensitivities or celiac disease. Reduced-gluten wheat is a promising new innovation in plant gene editing as researchers progress towards eliminating allergens in plants, like peanuts. Using gene editing to eliminate allergens would increase food safety overall.

From disease-resistant crops, to agriculture microbials that allow plants to absorb more nutrients from the earth, researchers are identifying various ways biotechnology can help feed a growing and warmer world without wrecking the environment.

In a piece for Massive Science, Marco Giovannetti with the Gregor Mendel Institute explores why GM crops are better for the environment than you think. Too often, GMOs are recklessly grouped in with agriculture practices that hurt the environment, however, as Giovannetti explains:

According to the data: not really. GM crops appear to be just as sustainable and productive as non-GM crops, if not more so.

Giovannetti goes on to note that in both aspects of “sustainability” – productivity and biodiversity – GM agriculture has outperformed non-GM crops.

“… cultivating GM crops has proven better for biodiversity than the conventional alternative, because one way to maintain biodiversity in a local ecosystem is to reduce pesticide use. A GM crop can do this by carrying its own defenses, making pesticides less necessary. For instance, “Bt” corn is engineered to be toxic to predators that would otherwise prey on it. They don’t need as much outside assistance in the form of pesticides sprayed over an entire field.”

And while some claim that pesticide-resistant crops lead to increased use of pesticides, farming data dispels that myth.

“…according to a 2014 meta-analysis, GM-based farming has required 37 percent fewer pesticides than conventional agriculture.”

Additionally, GM technology is allowing scientists to engineer plants that grow more efficiently in an increasingly populated and warmer world – requiring less resources like water and land.

As climate change progresses, land becomes more arid, usable topsoil is depleted, and water becomes more scarce. Conventional crops are typically not drought tolerant, and so as human-caused climate change continues, agricultural yields could drop. One study found that each degree of warming will result in anywhere from a 3-7 percent drop in global yield in wheat, rice, corn, and soybean. Tactics to adapt to this include engineering crops to retain more water, or adding genes that essentially stabilize cells, make them hardier, and hopefully able to withstand the stresses of a drought.

Often, those who advocate for saving the planet, are the same group that label GMOs has harmful and determinantal to the environment. However, inferring from Giovannetti’s piece, to be pro-GMO is to be pro-saving the planet.

Sisters that shade together stay together.

View Entire Post ›

The provides an excellent opportunity for companies looking to gain exposure and make the connections needed to take their product to the next phase. Winners of the Buzz of BIO contest at the will receive a complimentary and . Presentations are a key programming element, and allow companies to present their pipeline, R&D activities, and future goals to an exclusive audience of private and public equity investors.

Nominations are open today until August 22 at 5 PM ET, or until each category receives ten nominees. Ten biotech’s will be nominated in each of the three categories: Early Stage Entrepreneurs, Late Stage Leaders, and Diagnostics and Beyond. After the nominations period, voting will open and the companies with the most number of votes win.

• To qualify for the Early Stage Entrepreneur Grand Prize, companies must be actively developing a therapeutic product intended for FDA review that addresses human health issues and have raised less than $25 million USD as of July 1, 2018; have been founded after 2015; and have most recently completed either a Seed or Series A financing round. Companies that have previously presented at the BIO Investor Forum are not eligible for the Early Stage Entrepreneur category but are welcome to apply under the Late Stage Leader category (if the company meets the minimum dollar requirements of the Late Stage Leader category).
• To qualify for the Late Stage Leader Grand Prize, companies must be actively developing a therapeutic product intended for FDA review that addresses human health issues and have raised more than $25 million USD as of July 1, 2018 and have enrolled at least one patient in a company-sponsored clinical trial posted at https://clinicaltrials.gov.
• To qualify for the Diagnostics and Beyond category, companies must be primarily focused in medical diagnostics, drug delivery, drug development tools, or digital health technologies.

To nominate your company for Buzz of BIO, .

The BIO Investor Forum is an international biotech investor conference focused on investment opportunities in life sciences, with emphasis on venture-stage growth and emerging public companies as well as those poised to join the growth “watch-list” in 2019. The event features plenary sessions, business roundtables and therapeutic workshops, more than 160 public and venture-stage company presentations, premiere industry-focused networking opportunities, and over 2,700 BIO One-on-One Partnering™ meetings.

Don’t miss this exciting opportunity to be recognized. Good luck!

rates are available through September 9is also available for qualified members of the press.

*Due to the complexities of international laws regarding contests, only U.S. residents who are 21 years of age or older are eligible to enter.

Well, it’s official. We’ve finally reach the point where people are getting their advice from celebrities rather than scientists on science and medical issues. It’s fine when a celebrity takes up a cause like Alzheimer’s Disease, works with the Alzheimer’s Association, and goes to the Hill to advocate funding. Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Elton John – all celebrities using their fame to advocate for research for cures and treatments.

But there’s a big difference between a celebrity working with a leading reputable organization to affect change, and a celebrity just spouting their thoughts on Facebook or Twitter with no input from the leading scientists or doctors on very complex issues

Last week, the Washington Post published a review of a new book by Paul A. Offit, “Bad Advice: Or Why Celebrities, Politicians, and Activists Aren’t Your Best Source of Health Information,” which takes a close look at the harmful implications of the emerging trend. Offit, if you’re unaware, is a leading expert on the safety and necessity of vaccines, so he knows what he’s talking about.

GMO Answers has been driving home the message of listening to actual experts and not celebrities for five years.  Our entire campaign, in fact, is based on the idea that experts who actually grow and develop GMOs will answers any and all questions you have about GMOs. Using the book review of Dr. Offit’s book as an inspiration, we wrote a Medium blog post that highlights some of the pitfalls of listening to unqualified Hollywood celebrities instead of those who actually know the science around hot button issues, like Offit and vaccines.

We write:

Yet, many celebrities, including Kelly Clarkson, Gwyneth Paltrow, and more, irresponsibly use their platforms to make false statements about the safety and nutritional value of GMOs - a practice now being adopted by several food brands. For example, you can buy non-GMO grapefruit juice and non-GMO tomatoes at many grocery stores, despite the fact that a grapefruit doesn’t have a GMO counterpart, and there are no GMO tomatoes on the market. Some take it a step further - like Stonyfield, which ran an ad earlier this year featuring school-aged kids perpetuating GMO myths.

So if you have questions about GMOs, submit a question to GMO Answers or explore the website. Don’t just randomly listen to food and diet advice from a Hollywood celebrity. Get you information from people who know the issue best, the farmers who grow them, the scientists who develop them, and the dietitians who have been trained to look at the scientific literature to know that GMOs are safe to eat, and just as healthy and nutritious as any other food.

Vote for “Gene Editing and The Future of Food and Agriculture” panel at the 2019 SXSW Conference and Festival in Austin, TX, March 8-17, 2019!

It seems like every where you turn, somehow, someway, gene editing is being talked about. Just recently, 60 minutes ran a piece about the tremendous promise gene editing tools like CRISPR hold in human health. For the first time ever, CRISPR is being licensed to agricultural companies like J.R. Simplot Company to sustainably produce enough food to feed a growing planet, keep food fresh longer and reduce food waste. Not to mention, gene editing is being studied as a solution to some of the world’s toughest, most urgent challenges, like the citrus-greening disease that is wiping out Florida’s orange groves.

So, it makes since that at the 2019 SXSW Conference and Festival in Austin, TX, gene editing take center stage. The world’s largest gathering of creative professionals, SXSW has evolved from a music and film festival to an expansive display of innovations happening across industries. From Health & MedTech, to Social & Global Impact, to Media & Journalism, SXSW covers it all.

To ensure the innovation of gene editing takes center stage, BIO has teamed up with the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) to put together a panel on “Gene Editing and The Future of Food & Agriculture.” Representing academia and farmers, the panel will use case studies to discuss some of the biggest challenges facing modern ag today and explore how science (gene editing) will shape our future. Additionally, the panel will provide unparalleled insights into gene editing innovations coming down the pipeline and the social conversation around gene editing.

Panelists include:

• Brandon McFadden, Asst. Professor, Department of Applied Economics & Statistics, University of Delaware
• Randy Spronk, Farmer, Spronk Brothers III LLP and Ranger Farms LLP
• Fred Gmitter, Professor, University of Florida Citrus Research and Extension Center

Vote and learn more about the “Gene Editing and The Future of Food & Agriculture” here. Voting for the 2019 SXSW panels is open now until Thursday, August 30 – click here to create an Outlook reminder to vote before it ends! To vote, you’ll need to create a free SXSW account first (takes less than one minute), then you’re all set. Each account is allowed one vote during the voting period, so be sure you vote correctly.

For more information about the 2019 SXSW Festival and Conference, and to register to attend, click here.

The food and agriculture industry is on the verge of unleashing the potential that the convergence of biotechnology and data science can hold for the sector. Advances in genome editing, artificial intelligence, and remote sensing hold enormous potential to enhance human, animal, and environmental health, and enabling this progress will require dialogue and collaboration between different segments of industry, government, and civil society.

BIO Latin America, taking place on September 4-5, in São Paulo, will convene thought leaders from the region and around the world to discuss advances in health, agricultural, and environmental technologies, and the policy environment needed  to enable the commercialization of these technologies. Panel discussion topics will include the convergence of technologies, intellectual property protection, and biotech entrepreneurship.

In addition to the panel discussions, the conference, hosted by BIO and Biominas Brazil, will bring together high-level executives, industry leaders, policy makers, entrepreneurs, academics and investors from around the globe to debate trends, navigate industry challenges, access innovative companies, conduct 1×1 partnering meetings and discover new collaboration and deal making opportunities.

On July 25, when the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the European Union’s highest court, issued its ruling on directed mutagenesis, stakeholders and observers in the industry, academic, science and government arenas responded with a combination of shock and confusion.

In short, the ECJ ruled that organisms obtained by directed mutagenesis – a set of genome editing techniques, such as CRISPR, which make it possible to alter the genome of a living species without the insertion of foreign DNA – are GMOs and are subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO directive.

The Court’s decision runs counter to the preliminary opinion of the ECJ’s own Advocate General issued earlier this year. It is also contrary to the views taken by scientists and most regulatory bodies outside of Europe. Ultimately this action represents a severe obstacle to research and development of innovative food, agricultural and environmentally beneficial products derived from genome editing techniques.

“It is now likely that much of the potential of these innovative methods will be lost for Europe – with significant negative economic and environmental consequences. That strikes a serious blow to European agriculture and plant science.”, says Garlich von Essen, European Seed Association Secretary General.

If there was any doubt about whether this ruling will have a chilling effect on future research, one only has to look at the reaction from more than a dozen EU-based scientists. Among them:

“This decision may negatively impact our ability to respond to the challenge of securing sufficient food for our growing population in a changing climate.  It may also hinder the competitiveness of the EU’s biotechnology sector.” – Dr Nicola Patron, Head of Synthetic Biology, Earlham Institute.

“This will potentially impose highly onerous burdens on the use of genome editing both in agriculture and even in medicine, where the method has recently shown great promise for improving human health and well being.” – Prof Denis Murphy, Professor of Biotechnology, University of South Wales.

Scientists here in the United States were also scratching their heads and dreading the global impact of such a ruling. Carl Zimmer quotes two in his New York Times article, “What Is a Genetically Modified Crop? A European Ruling Sows Confusion” i:

“You’re not just affecting Europe, you’re affecting the world with this decision.” – Matthew Willmann, director of the Plant Transformation Facility at Cornell University

“I don’t know why they are doing that…I was thinking, ‘Do they have the right science advice?’” – Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society (GES) Center at North Carolina State University

Mark Lynas has more reaction from the science community in his blog, “Scientific community defeated by green groups in European court ruling on gene edited crops” beginning with that of Dr. Sarah Schmidt at the Institute for Molecular Physiology, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, who described the ECJ ruling as “the deathblow for plant biotech in Europe.”

Aside from a major blow to the research sector, for industry groups, the ruling could discourage investment in future technology development and deprive society of the tools needed to sustainably provide for our world.

Neal Gutterson is Chief Technology Officer, Corteva Agriscience, Agriculture Division of DowDuPont, explains in this post in Euractive:

“Subjecting all new breeding advances to regulatory review will stifle innovation and deprive European farmers and consumers of a range of important benefits. These include healthier vegetables, disease- and drought-resistant crops and locally produced replacements for palm oil, just to name a few.”

United States Government officials are worried about how the ruling could impede trade.

“The global regulatory treatment of genome-edited agricultural products has strategic innovation and trade implications for U.S. agriculture,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue in a statement on the ruling. “For this reason, USDA has clear science- and risk-based policies that enable needed innovation while continuing to ensure these products are safe. In light of the ECJ ruling, USDA will re-double its efforts to work with partners globally towards science- and risk-based regulatory approaches.”

Questions remain about how the ruling will ultimately be interpreted and how the ruling will translate into policy. While science and innovation have taken a hit this time, there is hope that continued dialogue might yield some more positive results.

Secretary Perdue said, “We encourage the European Union to seek input from the scientific and agricultural communities, as well as its trading partners, in determining the appropriate implementation of the ruling.”

EuropaBIO‘s Secretary General John Brennan agrees that more discussion is desperately needed:

“Looking forward, EuropaBio believes that the next step, for the EU and its Member States, is to engage citizens in an inclusive and fact-based dialogue on what genome editing is, and what it will or will not be used for. It will be important to build knowledge, develop understanding and deliver risk-proportionate policy approaches, allowing innovation, which is already taking place in other parts of the world, to also benefit the EU’s society, economy and the environment.”

This week, Representative Comstock introduced the Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing Engineering and Science Success Act of 2018, also known as the SUCCESS Act, which seeks to advance the cause of greater diversity in innovation and patenting.

Rep. Barbara Comstock of Virginia’s 10th congressional district

BIO strongly support this and similarly focused legislative initiatives, and has long worked to expand participation in STEM education and biotechnology professions. Our member companies, as part of our Workforce Development, Diversity, & Inclusion (WWDI) Initiatives, have set as a goal “as an industry, [to] achieve significant increase in racial diversity, increase LGBTQ representation and achieve 50 percent representation of women at functional leader and C-Suite by 2025, (gender diversity improving from ~25 percent currently).”

We have also set as a goal, “as an industry, [to] achieve improved racial diversity, LGBTQ representation and achieve 30 percent female Board membership in Biotech by 2025 (gender diversity improving from 10 percent currently).” We believe these goals are achievable if we all work together.

Passage of the SUCCESS Act will help provide BIO data needed to make this industry more inclusive. BIO applauds Representative Comstock’s efforts to advance the cause of greater diversity in innovation and patenting.