| 
On July 25 the European Union (EU) Court of Justice ruled that plants
      resulting from some of the latest plant breeding innovations, including
      targeted mutagenesis (i.e. gene editing) such as CRISPR, are considered
      genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
 It is important to note that the ruling is an interpretation of existing
      EU law. It is not a scientific assessment, nor an expression or statement
      of policy by the EU’s political bodies.
 
 This interpretation is at odds with decisions and interpretations made
      elsewhere in the world, including here in Australia, US, South America
      and Israel.
 
 
Summary 
The EU Court of
      Justice has issued its long-awaited decision on the regulatory status of
      plants resulting from some of the latest plant breeding innovations. This
      determines whether they can practically be taken up by researchers,
      universities, breeders and farmers in the EU.
 
 The ruling’s line of argument is based almost entirely on the breeding
      process (technology involved) and does not differentiate between product
      categories based on the outcome of these processes.
 
 The ruling puts forward a purely process-based approach after an EU
      specific point in time (2001; the time of adoption of the EU GMO
      Directive). Organisms obtained by means of mutagenesis which have
      “conventionally” been used and have a long safety record will continue to
      be exempt. This exemption would apply to the “classical”, random
      mutagenesis breeding methods using chemicals or radiation.
 
 In Australia, the current review of the Gene Technology Regulations and
      the National Gene Technology Scheme will provide regulatory clarity on
      plants and animals derived from the latest breeding methods for
      Australian industry and public-sector researchers.
 
 ABCA’s Statement of
      Principles on Regulatory Oversight of New Breeding Techniques
      is available on the ABCA website.
 
 
Further information:
-------------------------------------- 
 
Probably unexpected, and does not reflect on the science, but rather a legal interpretation. 
 
The media links above would say it all - most if not all are a bit stunned at the decision. 
 
No doubt the anti GM urgers will  applaud the decision, but it will have wide implications - or will it? 
 
 | 
No comments:
Post a Comment