Literature DB >> 30548610

A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward.

Dennis Eriksson1, Drew Kershen2, Alexandre Nepomuceno3, Barry J Pogson4, Humberto Prieto5, Kai Purnhagen6,7, Stuart Smyth8, Justus Wesseler9, Agustina Whelan10,11.   

Abstract

A special regulatory regime applies to products of recombinant nucleic acid modifications. A ruling from the European Court of Justice has interpreted this regulatory regime in a way that it also applies to emerging mutagenesis techniques. Elsewhere regulatory progress is also ongoing. In 2015, Argentina launched a regulatory framework, followed by Chile in 2017 and recently Brazil and Colombia. In March 2018, the USDA announced that it will not regulate genome-edited plants differently if they could have also been developed through traditional breeding. Canada has an altogether different approach with their Plants with Novel Traits regulations. Australia is currently reviewing its Gene Technology Act. This article illustrates the deviation of the European Union's (EU's) approach from the one of most of the other countries studied here. Whereas the EU does not implement a case-by-case approach, this approach is taken by several other jurisdictions. Also, the EU court ruling adheres to a process-based approach while most other countries have a stronger emphasis on the regulation of the resulting product. It is concluded that, unless a functioning identity preservation system for products of directed mutagenesis can be established, the deviation results in a risk of asynchronous approvals and disruptions in international trade.
© 2018 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2018 New Phytologist Trust.

Keywords:  CJEU; directed mutagenesis; genetically modified organism (GMO); genome editing; precision breeding

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30548610     DOI: 10.1111/nph.15627

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  New Phytol        ISSN: 0028-646X            Impact factor:   10.151


  22 in total

Review 1.  CRISPR/Cas systems: opportunities and challenges for crop breeding.

Authors:  Sukumar Biswas; Dabing Zhang; Jianxin Shi
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 4.570

Review 2.  Genetically modified crop regulations: scope and opportunity using the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing approach.

Authors:  Shweta Gupta; Adarsh Kumar; Rupali Patel; Vinay Kumar
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 2.316

3.  Exploring Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Genetically Edited Food Among Youth in Japan.

Authors:  Mohamed Farid; Jianfei Cao; Yeongjoo Lim; Teruyo Arato; Kota Kodama
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  How should we regulate products of new breeding techniques? Opinion of surveyed experts in plant biotechnology.

Authors:  Rim Lassoued; Diego Maximiliano Macall; Stuart J Smyth; Peter W B Phillips; Hayley Hesseln
Journal:  Biotechnol Rep (Amst)       Date:  2020-05-05

Review 5.  Gene Editing Regulation and Innovation Economics.

Authors:  Agustina I Whelan; Patricia Gutti; Martin A Lema
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2020-04-15

6.  The Economics of Regulating New Plant Breeding Technologies - Implications for the Bioeconomy Illustrated by a Survey Among Dutch Plant Breeders.

Authors:  Justus Wesseler; Hidde Politiek; David Zilberman
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 5.753

Review 7.  Current status and prospects of plant genome editing in Australia.

Authors:  Yan Zhang; Jemma Restall; Peter Crisp; Ian Godwin; Guoquan Liu
Journal:  In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 2.252

8.  Politicizing the Precautionary Principle: Why Disregarding Facts Should Not Pass for Farsightedness.

Authors:  Philipp Aerni
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 5.753

Review 9.  The Rapeseed Potential in Poland and Germany in the Context of Production, Legislation, and Intellectual Property Rights.

Authors:  Ewa Woźniak; Ewa Waszkowska; Tomasz Zimny; Sławomir Sowa; Tomasz Twardowski
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 5.753

10.  Reduced fire blight susceptibility in apple cultivars using a high-efficiency CRISPR/Cas9-FLP/FRT-based gene editing system.

Authors:  Valerio Pompili; Lorenza Dalla Costa; Stefano Piazza; Massimo Pindo; Mickael Malnoy
Journal:  Plant Biotechnol J       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 9.803

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.