Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform

This article gives an overview of legal and procedural uncertainties regarding genome edited organisms and possible ways forward for European GMO policy. After a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ judgment of 25 July 2018, C-528/16), organisms obtained by techniques of genome edit...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Martin Wasmer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-06-01
Series:Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00132/full
id doaj-e01f6ae0d3fe400f9347bbad02e4c92a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e01f6ae0d3fe400f9347bbad02e4c92a2020-11-25T01:38:33ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology2296-41852019-06-01710.3389/fbioe.2019.00132434522Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory ReformMartin WasmerThis article gives an overview of legal and procedural uncertainties regarding genome edited organisms and possible ways forward for European GMO policy. After a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ judgment of 25 July 2018, C-528/16), organisms obtained by techniques of genome editing are GMOs and subject to the same obligations as transgenic organisms. Uncertainties emerge if genome edited organisms cannot be distinguished from organisms bred by conventional techniques, such as crossing or random mutagenesis. In this case, identical organisms can be subject to either GMO law or exempt from regulation because of the use of a technique that cannot be identified. Regulatory agencies might not be able to enforce GMO law for such cases in the long term. As other jurisdictions do not regulate such organisms as GMOs, accidental imports might occur and undermine European GMO regulation. In the near future, the EU Commission as well as European and national regulatory agencies will decide on how to apply the updated interpretation of the law. In order to mitigate current legal and procedural uncertainties, a first step forward lies in updating all guidance documents to specifically address genome editing specifically address genome editing, including a solution for providing a unique identifier. In part, the authorization procedure for GMO release can be tailored to different types of organisms by making use of existing flexibilities in GMO law. However, only an amendment to the regulations that govern the process of authorization for GMO release can substantially lower the burden for innovators. In a second step, any way forward has to aim at amending, supplementing or replacing the European GMO Directive (2001/18/EC). The policy options presented in this article presuppose political readiness for reform. This may not be realistic in the current political situation. However, if the problems of current GMO law are just ignored, European competitiveness and research in green biotechnology will suffer.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00132/fullGMO regulationfuture policyCJEU C-528/16directive 2001/18/ECgenome editingnew genetic modification techniques (nGM)
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Martin Wasmer
spellingShingle Martin Wasmer
Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
GMO regulation
future policy
CJEU C-528/16
directive 2001/18/EC
genome editing
new genetic modification techniques (nGM)
author_facet Martin Wasmer
author_sort Martin Wasmer
title Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform
title_short Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform
title_full Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform
title_fullStr Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform
title_full_unstemmed Roads Forward for European GMO Policy—Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform
title_sort roads forward for european gmo policy—uncertainties in wake of ecj judgment have to be mitigated by regulatory reform
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
issn 2296-4185
publishDate 2019-06-01
description This article gives an overview of legal and procedural uncertainties regarding genome edited organisms and possible ways forward for European GMO policy. After a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ judgment of 25 July 2018, C-528/16), organisms obtained by techniques of genome editing are GMOs and subject to the same obligations as transgenic organisms. Uncertainties emerge if genome edited organisms cannot be distinguished from organisms bred by conventional techniques, such as crossing or random mutagenesis. In this case, identical organisms can be subject to either GMO law or exempt from regulation because of the use of a technique that cannot be identified. Regulatory agencies might not be able to enforce GMO law for such cases in the long term. As other jurisdictions do not regulate such organisms as GMOs, accidental imports might occur and undermine European GMO regulation. In the near future, the EU Commission as well as European and national regulatory agencies will decide on how to apply the updated interpretation of the law. In order to mitigate current legal and procedural uncertainties, a first step forward lies in updating all guidance documents to specifically address genome editing specifically address genome editing, including a solution for providing a unique identifier. In part, the authorization procedure for GMO release can be tailored to different types of organisms by making use of existing flexibilities in GMO law. However, only an amendment to the regulations that govern the process of authorization for GMO release can substantially lower the burden for innovators. In a second step, any way forward has to aim at amending, supplementing or replacing the European GMO Directive (2001/18/EC). The policy options presented in this article presuppose political readiness for reform. This may not be realistic in the current political situation. However, if the problems of current GMO law are just ignored, European competitiveness and research in green biotechnology will suffer.
topic GMO regulation
future policy
CJEU C-528/16
directive 2001/18/EC
genome editing
new genetic modification techniques (nGM)
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00132/full
work_keys_str_mv AT martinwasmer roadsforwardforeuropeangmopolicyuncertaintiesinwakeofecjjudgmenthavetobemitigatedbyregulatoryreform
_version_ 1725053155213836288