In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its final ruling on the much anticipated Confédération Paysanne & Others case on the regulation of mutagenic plants in the European Union (EU). Advocate General Bobek had opined that mutagenic techniques for the development of novel plant varieties should be exempted from the stringent provisions set out in the EU genetically modified organisms (GMO) Directive. It came as somewhat of a surprise, therefore, when the Court of Justice, in its final ruling, took a diametrically opposite point of view to that of the Advocate General, and concluded that novel mutagenic techniques must be subject to the provisions set out in the EU's various regulations relating to GMOs. The scientific community are now calling for the European Commission to consider new legislation to take account of novel plant breeding techniques. This case note sets out how the CJEU reached its conclusions, explains why the GMO Directive is not anti‐science and considers the important role that defining ‘natural’ within a legal context will play in the forthcoming debate on science, innovation and novel plant breeding techniques.
|Journal||Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law|
|Early online date||17 Jun 2019|
|Publication status||Published - Nov 2019|