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

Dennis Eriksson, Drew Kershen, Alexandre Nepomuceno, Barry J. Pogson, Humberto Prieto, Kai Purnhagen, Stuart Smyth, Justus Wesseler, Agustina Whelan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

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.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1673-1684
JournalNew Phytologist
Volume222
Issue number4
Early online date13 Dec 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2019

Fingerprint

international trade
European Union
mutagenesis
Mutagenesis
Plant Genome
United States Department of Agriculture
Colombia
Chile
Argentina
Social Justice
USDA
Nucleic Acids
nucleic acids
Canada
Breeding
Brazil
Technology
genome
breeding
Genes

Keywords

  • CJEU
  • directed mutagenesis
  • genetically modified organism (GMO)
  • genome editing
  • precision breeding

Cite this

Eriksson, Dennis ; Kershen, Drew ; Nepomuceno, Alexandre ; Pogson, Barry J. ; Prieto, Humberto ; Purnhagen, Kai ; Smyth, Stuart ; Wesseler, Justus ; Whelan, Agustina. / A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward. In: New Phytologist. 2019 ; Vol. 222, No. 4. pp. 1673-1684.
@article{a88aee708e8c4172a9c52780cb30ec17,
title = "A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward",
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.",
keywords = "CJEU, directed mutagenesis, genetically modified organism (GMO), genome editing, precision breeding",
author = "Dennis Eriksson and Drew Kershen and Alexandre Nepomuceno and Pogson, {Barry J.} and Humberto Prieto and Kai Purnhagen and Stuart Smyth and Justus Wesseler and Agustina Whelan",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/nph.15627",
language = "English",
volume = "222",
pages = "1673--1684",
journal = "New Phytologist",
issn = "0028-646X",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "4",

}

A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward. / Eriksson, Dennis; Kershen, Drew; Nepomuceno, Alexandre; Pogson, Barry J.; Prieto, Humberto; Purnhagen, Kai; Smyth, Stuart; Wesseler, Justus; Whelan, Agustina.

In: New Phytologist, Vol. 222, No. 4, 06.2019, p. 1673-1684.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward

AU - Eriksson, Dennis

AU - Kershen, Drew

AU - Nepomuceno, Alexandre

AU - Pogson, Barry J.

AU - Prieto, Humberto

AU - Purnhagen, Kai

AU - Smyth, Stuart

AU - Wesseler, Justus

AU - Whelan, Agustina

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - CJEU

KW - directed mutagenesis

KW - genetically modified organism (GMO)

KW - genome editing

KW - precision breeding

U2 - 10.1111/nph.15627

DO - 10.1111/nph.15627

M3 - Article

VL - 222

SP - 1673

EP - 1684

JO - New Phytologist

T2 - New Phytologist

JF - New Phytologist

SN - 0028-646X

IS - 4

ER -