In the United States, you’ll be able to taste modified mushrooms that do not blacken when cut. In Japan, tomatoes produce fewer enzymes to improve sleep quality and reduce stress. Other similar ideas are in the works, such as potatoes that do not produce acrylamide, a carcinogen.
Several examples show that the experiments around CRISPR are very variable, with sometimes quite anecdotal attempts to modify a food. “The technology is very inexpensive,” deciphers Pierre Barret, director of research at the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (Inrae).
Despite this apparent simplicity, the concept can be scary: are we ready to consume products whose DNA has been artificially modified? This is a question that recalls the debates around genetically modified organisms (GMOs). However, technology has nothing to do with it. “What was scary about GMOs was the idea of transgression,” summarizes Pierre Barret. This is more an ethical question than a scientifically based fear. But including rabbit genes in a tomato, for example, goes against nature, it’s not “normal”. There is none of that in Crispr.”
…
And this progress is made with the same opposition as those surrounding GMOs… Natalie Bennett, former leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, denounced a giveaway to big business farming: “The problem starts with the term ‘precision breeding’. It’s a marketing slogan, not a technical and legal reality.”
[Editor’s note: This article has been translated from French and edited for clarity.]
