When we hear the word mutation, most of us imagine something sinister: radioactive monsters, genetic diseases, or comic book villains. But in plant breeding, mutations are neither rare nor inherently dangerous. In fact, they are the quiet, constant changes in DNA that have helped make bananas seedless, almonds edible, and tomatoes juicy. With new tools like genome editing, we now have the power to guide these mutations with unprecedented precision, writes BSPB head of policy Dr Anthony Hopkins.

 

A new review paper by researchers at Bayer Crop Science, titled Beautiful and delicious mutants: The origins, fates, and benefits of molecular sequence variation in plant evolution and breeding, explains how genetic mutations in plants are not just accidents of nature - they are the foundation of agriculture itself.

 

Published in the scientific journal Plant Physiology, the paper argues that plant mutations — whether spontaneous or engineered — are at the heart of food security and agricultural innovation.

 

From chance to choice

For most of human history, crop genetic improvement has relied on luck. A farmer might notice a barley plant with larger seeds or a tomato with fewer cracks and save those seeds for the next season. Without realising it, they were harnessing mutations — random DNA changes that happened to produce useful traits.

 

Each generation of plant has natural mutations in its DNA which help to drive the processes of evolution and natural selection. Some of these changes will make the plant more or less successful in its environment, but humans have been able to harness this to benefit the development of agriculture. Over thousands of years, this slow process of selection and human intervention helped transform bitter wild almonds into sweet ones, sprawling teosinte grasses into compact, high-yielding maize plants, and tough wild apples into crisp dessert varieties.

 

But chance alone could only take us so far – it is slow and unpredictable. In the mid-20th century, scientists began deliberately inducing mutations with radiation and chemicals, hoping to accelerate the discovery of beneficial traits. This “mutation breeding” produced thousands of new crop varieties, from malting barley and high-yielding rice to colourful chrysanthemums. These ‘mutant’ varieties remain staples in our diets and gardens today.

 

In the Bayer paper, the authors emphasise that these older methods of inducing mutations are not fundamentally different from natural ones — the DNA changes are physically indistinguishable. The only difference is whether they occurred by chance or by human design.

 

Genome editing: evolution with a scalpel

The most recent chapter in this evolving story is genome editing. Tools like CRISPR allow scientists to introduce mutations at specific locations in a plant’s genome, rather than waiting for chance or using   radiation. Imagine being able to edit an almond so that only its kernels lose bitterness, while its roots still produce natural protective compounds against insects. Or designing rice that can thrive in salty soils without sacrificing yield.

 

The paper argues that genome editing is, in many ways, just a more precise continuation of what farmers and breeders have always done: generating genetic diversity and then selecting useful traits. But unlike earlier methods, genome editing is much more precise - which saves time and reduces wasted effort by improving the chances of success in modern plant breeding programmes.

 

The beauty of variation

One of the most compelling aspects of the paper is the way it reframes the mutations delivered by plant breeders over the years as sources of beauty and diversity. Consider:

 

• Polyploidy — the doubling (or even tripling) of entire genomes — has given us plump seedless watermelons, modern octoploid strawberries which stem from natural 18th century hybridisation, and the fluffy ornamental cockscomb flower. Though technically “errors” in cell division, these mutations are agricultural treasures;

 

• Structural changes like inversions or translocations have shaped crop qualities ranging from the colour of wine grapes to disease resistance in wheat;

 

• Tiny DNA changes can have massive consequences: a single base-pair swap made almonds safe to eat, while another created carrots rich in vitamin A.

 

Even transposable elements — so-called “jumping genes” once dismissed as genomic parasites — have sparked major agricultural shifts, including the transformation of maize from a many-branched wild grass into the single-stalk architecture found in modern cornfields, whose global production today exceeds 1 billion tonnes.  

 

These stories remind us that our food system is built on centuries of accumulated mutations, selected and refined by both natural forces and human intervention.

 

The perception problem

But if mutations are so central to agriculture, why do they carry such a negative reputation? The paper notes that in popular culture, “mutants” are usually monsters, and in medicine, mutations are often linked to cancer or genetic disorders. Rarely do we hear about mutations as the reason we enjoy juicy peaches or seedless bananas.

 

This perception gap matters. Genome editing, despite producing the same types of DNA changes found in nature, is often regulated and debated as though it were fundamentally different. A CRISPR-edited tomato with enhanced nutrition may face more regulatory hurdles than a variety created decades ago by exposing seeds to radiation — even though both contain mutations of the same kind. This is why in plants genome editing is usually referred to as precision breeding. It allows a breeder to do something they could try to do with traditional techniques, but more precisely, and with far fewer of the unplanned mutations which come with every generation of conventional breeding methods.

 

The paper suggests that our focus should shift from how a mutation arose to what it does. Does it make food safer, more nutritious, or more resilient to climate change? If so, does the process by which that change occurred really matter?

 

Mutations for a changing world

As the global population grows and the climate becomes more unpredictable, the stakes of crop improvement are rising. Plant breeders need access to tools that can help them develop crop varieties to withstand drought, resist pests, and thrive in a range of soil type and conditions, all while satisfying consumer preferences for taste, nutrition, and shelf life.

 

Random mutation, whether natural or induced, will always play a role. But targeted genome editing allows us to guide the process more deliberately. Instead of hoping for a beneficial mutation to arise, we can recreate known combinations of genes in new crop varieties or even design entirely new traits.

 

The challenges of feeding a growing global population and doing so more sustainably are vast and traditional plant breeding is a time-consuming process of incremental improvement. Genome editing reduces the time it takes to develop new, better, and more sustainable varieties of crops. 

 

Importantly, the authors also stress that no single approach is sufficient. Genome editing complements — rather than replaces — existing practices of conventional breeding, germplasm conservation, and farmer knowledge. The goal is not to abandon this diversity of methods, but to expand the toolbox available to tackle agriculture’s greatest challenges.

 

Beyond the lab: ethics and equity

While the paper focuses mainly on the science of mutations, it hints at broader questions. Who decides which mutations are desirable? How do we ensure that genome editing benefits smallholder farmers as well as large-scale agriculture? And how do we balance innovation with the preservation of traditional crops and farming practices?

 

These are not just technical questions but cultural and ethical ones. Food is deeply tied to identity, tradition, and trust. If mutations are the raw material of agriculture, society must decide how to use them responsibly.

 

But it is vitally important that those decisions, and the public conversation surrounding then, are based on a solid understanding of how these newer forms of breeding relate to the spontaneous and human-induced mutations which have underpinned the development of agriculture and food production for thousands of years.

 

A celebration of mutants

The review paper is, at its heart, a call to rethink how we view mutations. Far from being aberrations, they are the sparks of novelty that have given us the diversity of crops we depend on. Every mouthful of bread, fruit, or vegetable is, in some sense, a celebration of mutants — beautiful, delicious, and essential.

 

If history is any guide, the crops of the future - and with it our ability to feed a growing population in the face of a changing climate - will continue to be shaped by both chance and choice, by a combination of natural variation and human ingenuity.

 

Dr Anthony Hopkins joined the British Society of Plant Breeders (BSPB) as head of policy in January 2024. He was previously chief crops adviser at the NFU. From a farming background, he also has a PhD in political strategy.