A Public Resource Compiled by the

Cuba: Crops / Food

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Ongoing Research, Regulations In Development

No clear distinction has been made between gene edited and transgenic crops, but CRISPR and other crops modified using new breeding techniques are expected to face less regulatory resistance.

Cuba only recently began experimenting with the gene editing of crops, and any approvals may not happen for years. Its gradual embrace of genetic engineering began in 1986, when Fidel Castro founded the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB). In the 1990s, 50 research centers emerged, which were merged in 2012 into the state owned business BioCubaPharma. Because of government scepticism about their safety, no crops have been approved although GM maize and soybean seeds are in the regulatory pipeline.

The CIGB and the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences (INCA) focused on the development of recombinant enzymes for the food industry, vaccines and veterinary drugs, and plant breeding — conventional and biotechnological — of key crops such as corn, soybeans, beans and sugar cane, in addition to plants that function as biofactories.

The first transgenic plants created at laboratory level in Cuba by the CIGB date back to 1996 -specifically a tobacco that produces the monoclonal antibody Hep-1. In the mid-2000s, Carlos Borroto, then vice rector of the CIGB, reported that “among the most advanced GMOs, there are varieties of pest-resistant corn and sweet potatoes, rice immune to fungi, and tomatoes unaffected by viruses”.

In 2004, a collaboration among CIGB, the Liliana Dimitrova Horticultural Research Institute and the Cuban Grain Research Institute, developed a GM corn called resistant to fall armyworm and tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate. In 2009, this Bt corn variety obtained safety permits. By 2013, more than 3,000 hectares of Bt corn were reported being grown as part of a government plan to reduce production costs. Another research project implemented by a partnership between CIGB and INCA is the production of an herbicide-resistant GM soybean.

Dr. Mario Pablo Estrada, director of Agricultural Research at CIGB, has said that by 2024 Cuba expects to add between 50 and 100 thousand hectares of local Bt corn and herbicide-tolerant soybean. Scientists are also working in collaboration with EMBRAPA, a Brazilian state company, to develop gene-edited beans, which would be the country’s first CRISPR crop, if approved.

In 2020, in response to stresses on the global food system exacerbated by the COVID crisis, the Cuban government created a National Commission for the Use of Genetically Modified (GM) Organisms. Its responsibility is to monitor the orderly use of biotechnology in support of Cuba’s agricultural development. 

That July, the Commission released Decree-Law No. 4, a “food sovereignty” plan designed to open the door to the growing of transgenic crops as a “complement to conventional agriculture”. The law implemented a nationwide policy of ‘’controlled inclusion’’. It did not distinguish  between transgenic and gene-edited crops. 

“Cuba is seeking to use this technology for the purposes of sustainable development and not with practices that in other contexts have had an environmental impact,” said the deputy minister of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (CITMA).

Decree-Law No.4 also harmonized Cuban biotech with international regulatory instruments, like the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and CODEX Alimentarius. It stated that all activities related to genetic engineering will “have an adequate risk assessment, following the principles of precaution, transparency in management, the communication of information and ethical-scientific responsibility”.

Products/Research

There are no gene edited crops in development.

Regulatory Timeline

2020: New biotechnology framework, Movement of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms (also called the SECURE Biotechnology Regulations), finalized.

2012: BioCubaPharma created from the majority of major Cuban biotechnology institutes.

2008: FR-Bt1, Cuba’s first GM corn, is planted.

1986: Foundation of the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB).

NGO Reaction

No organized resistance. The press in Cuba never demonized GM crop innovation as was the case in other left-leaning countries. Well reported and positive stories can be found in Granma, the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party, and CubaDebate, a group of journalists that defends the Cuban regime. 

Additional Resources

Updated: 04/18/2023

 

 

Click on a country (eg. Brazil, US) or region (eg. European Union) below to find which agriculture products and processes are approved or in development and their regulatory status. The regulations on genetically engineered crops and animals are emerging out of the regulatory landscape developed for transgenic GMOs.

World single states political map

European Union

European Union

Switzerland

Switzerland

Brazil

New Zealand

New Zealand

United States

United States

Australia

Australia

Canada

China

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Israel

Argentina

Argentina

Japan

Mexico

Russia

Chile

Uruguay

Paraguay

India

Africa

Ukraine

Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia

Central America

Central America

Colombia

Norway

Ecuador

Cuba

Argentina

Australia

Central America

European Union

New Zealand

Southeast Asia

United Kingdom

United States

Agriculture Gene Editing Index
Compare Regulatory Restrictions Country-to-Country

Gene editing regulations worldwide are evolving. The Gene Editing Index ratings below represent the current status of gene editing regulations and will be updated as new regulations are passed.

Colors and ratings guide
 

Regulation StatusRating
Determined: No Unique Regulations*10
Lightly Regulated8
Proposed: No Unique Regulations†6
Ongoing Research, Regulations In Development5
Highly Regulated4
Mostly Prohibited2
Limited Research, No Clear Regulations1
Prohibited0
Lightly Regulated: Some or all types of gene editing are regulated more strictly than conventional agriculture, but not as strictly as transgenic GMOs.
*Determined: No Unique Regulations: Gene-edited crops that do not incorporate DNA from another species are regulated as conventional plants with no additional restrictions.

†Proposed: No Unique Regulations: Decrees under consideration for gene-edited crops that do not incorporate DNA from another species would no require unique regulations beyond current what is imposed on conventional breeding.

Crops/Food:
Gene editing of plants and food products. Research and development has mostly focused on disease resistance, drought resistance, and increasing yield, but more recent advances have produced low trans-fat oils and high-fiber grains.
Animals:
Gene editing of animals, not including animal research for human drugs and therapies. Fewer gene edited animals have been developed than gene edited crops, but scientists have developed hornless and heat-tolerant cattle and fast-growing tilapia may soon be the first gene edited animal to be consumed.

Rating by Country / Region
Click each column header and arrow to sort the countries / regions

Swipe right/left if all columns aren't visible

Country / RegionFood / CropsAnimalsAg Rating
Ecuador101010
Norway666
Africa555
Japan888
Brazil101010
Canada888
Russia555
Argentina101010
Israel1057.5
Australia888
Switzerland555
China555
US1047
Chile1015.5
New Zealand444
Ukraine111
Central America666
Paraguay101010
Uruguay666
India666
UK222
Mexico111
EU222
Colombia1015.5

Global gene editing regulatory landscape

The regulations on genetically engineered crops and animals are emerging out of the regulatory landscape developed for transgenic GMOs. Regulations across 34 countries where transgenic or gene edited crops and animals are commercially allowed (as of 12/19) are guided in part by two factors:
 
 
Whether the country has ratified the international agreement that took effect in 2003 that aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from biotechnology that may impact biological diversity, also taking into account potential risks to human health. It entered into force for those nations that signed it in 2003. It applies the ‘precautionary approach as contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The US, Canada, Australia and Chile and the Russian Federation have not signed the treaty.
 
 
Whether regulations are based on the genetic process used to create the trait (conventional, mutagenesis, transgenesis, gene editing, etc.) or the final product.Transgenic crops and animals (aka GMOs) are product regulated in many countries including the US and Canada, while the EU, India, China and others regulate based on how the product is made. There is almost an equal number of countries with product- and process-based regulations. It’s not clear how much this distinction matters. It’s somewhat true that countries with product-based regulation have more crops approved and the approval process is more streamlined, but there are contradictions. For example, Brazil and Argentina have emerged as GMO super powers using different regulatory concepts, while there is no GMO commercial cultivation in Japan, North Korea, and the Russian Federation, which employ product-based regulations. How this will effect gene editing regulations is also unclear. For example, Japan, which has no commercialized GMOs, is emerging as a leader in the introduction of gene edited crops.
Agricultural Landscape
Share via

Gene editing is a set of techniques that can be used to precisely modify the DNA of almost any organism. It is being used for applications in human health, gene drives and agriculture. There are numerous gene-editing tools besides CRISPR-Cas 9, which gets most of the attention because it is a comparatively easy tool to use.

Gene editing does not usually involve transgenics – moving ‘foreign’ genes between species. It also refers to a specific technique in contrast to the general term GMO, which is scientifically ambiguous, as genetic modification is a process not a product. Most gene editing involves creating new products by deleting very small segments of DNA (sometimes in agriculture called Site-Directed Nuclease 1 or SDN-1 techniques), which can silence a gene or change a gene’s activity. Countries are evaluating whether or not to regulate this type of gene editing, since it is so similar to natural mutations. The GLP’s Gene Editing Index ratings reflect the regulatory status of SDN-1 techniques, which are the most liberally regulated and will generate most products in the near term.

To develop different products, gene editing can change larger segments of DNA or add DNA from other species (a form of transgenics sometimes in agriculture called SDN-2 or SDN-3 techniques). While many countries are not regulating or lightly regulating SDN-1 techniques, most are moving toward tightly regulating or even restricting SDN-2 and SDN-3.

For more background on the various gene editing SDN techniques, read background articles here and here.