Industry shocked by EU Court decision to put gene editing technique under GM law
In 2016, France asked the ECJ to clarify whether a variety of herbicide-resistant rapeseed obtained through new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) should follow the GMO approval process.
image: Shutterstock
The European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday (25 July) that organisms obtained by mutagenesis plant breeding technique are GMOs and should, in principle, fall under the GMO Directive, in a surprising move that went contrary to the Advocate-General’s non-binding opinion.
The decision shocked the industry, which described it as a severe blow to innovation in EU agriculture and warned about economic and environmental consequences.
József Máté, Corporate Communications Leader at Corteva Agriscience, described the Court decision as a “bad day” for the EU agri-food sector.
“While we certainly need more time to carefully analyse the potential impact of the ruling, it is obvious that subjecting plants obtained through using the latest plant breeding methods to the GMO legislation of the EU will prohibit European consumers, producers, researchers, entrepreneurs from accessing the benefits of these innovations,” Máté said.
“As a global leader in the field of plant breeding innovation, including CRISPR-Cas, we are committed to bringing innovative and sustainable solutions to farmers through both conventional techniques as well as innovative techniques that can provide even greater quality, accuracy, and speed,” he added.
In 2016, France asked the ECJ to clarify whether a variety of herbicide-resistant rapeseed obtained through new plant breeding techniques (NPBTs) should follow the GMO approval process [See background].
The term NPBTs describes a number of scientific methods for the genetic engineering of plants to enhance traits like drought tolerance and pest resistance.
The agri-food industry says the plants obtained through these techniques could also be the product of conventional cross-breeding techniques that mimic natural processes and hence cannot be considered GMOs.
To opponents, they are just another attempt at selling “hidden” GMOs to European farmers, who will simultaneously lose their right to use their own seeds. Their basic argument is that all these techniques should fall under the strict GMO approval process.
“Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs within the meaning of the GMO Directive, in so far as the techniques and methods of mutagenesis alter the genetic material of an organism in a way that does not occur naturally,” the ECJ said in its ruling.
By Sarantis Michalopoulos | EURACTIV.com