Scientific mistakes from the agri-food biotech critics

Area of Science:

• Agricultural Biotechnology
• Genetics and Evolutionary Biology
• Food Science and Regulation

Background:

• The agri-food sector faces debate over advanced biotechnologies, specifically New Breeding Techniques (NBTs) like CRISPR.
• Critics advocate for stringent regulations on NBTs, exceeding those for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), based on perceived inherent risks.
• This position contrasts with the scientific consensus that regulation should be product-based, focusing on phenotypic traits rather than the breeding process itself.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the arguments put forth by critics of NBTs in the agri-food sector.
• To challenge the assertion that NBTs are inherently risky and warrant stricter regulation than traditional methods or GMOs.
• To analyze the scientific basis of criticisms, including the misuse of the Precautionary Principle and unsubstantiated claims of harm.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of arguments presented by opponents of NBTs, focusing on their reliance on faulty reasoning and scientific inaccuracies.
• Comparison of regulatory triggers: product traits versus specific breeding processes.
• Examination of the scientific consensus on risk assessment in biotechnology, distinguishing between unintended effects and actual harm.

Main Results:

• The critics' position is deemed unwarranted, relying on flawed arguments that misinterpret scientific consensus and risk.
• NBTs do not present inherent risks distinct from other breeding techniques; unpredictable effects are common across all methods.
• Claims of hidden dangers (e.g., allergenicity, toxicity) from NBTs are unsubstantiated and lack scientific evidence, similar to claims against traditional techniques.

Conclusions:

• The call for severe regulation of NBTs is based on unscientific distinctions and a misunderstanding of risk.
• The focus on process rather than product in NBT regulation is scientifically unsound.
• The paper highlights the anti-scientific motivations behind some criticisms and the uncertain regulatory future of NBTs, particularly in the EU.