The State Duma Council in Russia is weighing changes to the legal framework governing the development and use of genetic technologies. The proposed revisions draw a clear line between genetically modified organisms and organisms that have not had DNA inserts typical of a species. In the first scenario, the genome changes involve DNA insertions that are not part of the natural species, while the second excludes such inserts and relies on genome changes without foreign DNA.
The amendments refine and clarify several terms, introduce the concept of closely related species as living things and closed systems where gene transfer occurs naturally, and define species where genetic engineering products do not contact the population or environment. Additionally, the section equating work with genetically modified microorganisms on a broad scale beyond laboratory research to high-risk tasks was deemed invalid. Attribution: Vasily Taranov, Candidate of Biological Sciences.
Vasily Taranov described the changes as framework-oriented, noting regulation will likely be handled by relevant departments and may lead to new laws or regulations in the future. This perspective comes from the All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Biotechnology (VNIISB) facilities (attribution: Gazeta.ru).
The amendments signal that a broader law will be developed, with the core shift being the separation of genetically modified organisms from other forms. GMOs stand out because they do not contain foreign DNA, calling for a fundamentally different regulatory approach, according to academician Gennady Karlov, director of VNIISB (attribution: socialbites.ca).
Another key point is that industrial microorganisms may use a variety of amino acids, enabling production processes. The prior legal framework treated these organisms like highly pathogenic ones, limiting domestic production and favoring imports. The new approach would place such microorganisms in a milder category, allowing domestic factory construction and production of essential components such as amino acids and vitamins for animal feed (attribution: Karlov).
Alexander Panchin, Candidate of Biological Sciences and senior researcher at the Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, cautioned that the current state makes GMO cultivation in Russia nearly impossible, with limited activity in agriculture and animal husbandry. He noted that genetic engineering is used in medicine, for instance in insulin production, but in agriculture, progress is stalled (attribution: Panchin).
While imports from other countries remain allowed, the current restrictive law has drawn criticism for hindering Russian science, since domestic development could be applied elsewhere if restricted domestically. Legislators appear to recognize the necessity of genetic engineering, suggesting a possible shift in policy (attribution: Panchin).
invisible attachment
Uncertainty remains about how future regulations will determine whether a plant or animal has been genetically edited. Detecting foreign DNA is feasible, but identifying edits to an organism’s own genome is far more challenging when signs are subtle or absent (attribution: Taranov).
The human genome contains roughly three billion nucleotides, represented by A, T, G, and C. Plant genomes can reach tens of billions of letters. Editing can alter a single letter, but identifying that change requires reading the entire genome, a costly process. The law currently does not explicitly define this, leaving scope for broad interpretation (attribution: Taranov).
Experts suggest routine analysis is not practical, and much will depend on how regulations are written. The texts are often abstract, allowing wide interpretation yet permitting extraction if desired (attribution: Taranov).
Scientists agree that safety and nutritional value matter more than the method of obtaining an organism. Some lawmakers still treat GMOs as a special category with unique risks, but natural DNA mutations occur in every generation across all organisms. The difference with genetic engineering is that researchers track specific genetic changes and aim to reproduce beneficial effects in targeted ways, without unintended genetic disruption (attribution: Panchin).
Check all products
Panchin and Taranov emphasize that every food item should be tested for safety, regardless of its origin. Classical selection and random mutations can alter nutritional traits and potential hazards, and the concern should not be limited to any particular class of organisms (attribution: Panchin).
Biology does not define a distinct GMO class; a mutation can occur artificially in a lab or arise through evolution, yielding similar outcomes. What matters is the type of mutation and its consequences (attribution: Panchin).
While medical and research uses of genetically modified organisms remain feasible, agricultural applications face significant hurdles. Prost handling varies: research and testing may occur, but practical use is restricted in cultivation and production, though imports for feed or food purposes persist (attribution: Karlov).
Predicting future legal changes is difficult; scientists hope for positive moves, but public anxiety and legislative caution often slow progress, especially in farming. A gradual relaxation of statutes is seen as a path toward enabling useful products, with China cited as an example of easing restrictions as science progresses (attribution: Karlov).
Edit Future
Taranov believes that global advances in genomic editing could boost Russia’s export competitiveness in agriculture. He notes that Russia already matches or exceeds some outputs but lags in other crops, such as sugar beet. As Western countries, China, and others invest heavily in genetic engineering, technologies may be deployed more broadly, sometimes without explicit disclosure (attribution: Taranov).
Any reform should start by explaining how genetic engineering works and its benefits to the public, rather than relying on popular opinion alone. Education is essential for clarity, reducing unfounded fears and building support for genetic technologies (attribution: Panchin).
Taranov acknowledged a period of uncertainty that hampers the development of these technologies in the country. He stressed that potential beneficiaries increasingly seek clear pathways to commercialization, a question that remains difficult to answer without a functioning legal framework for genome-edited crops (attribution: Taranov).