Perennial grains hold promise, especially for marginal landscapes or with limited resources where annual versions struggle.

Novel plant genome editing techniques call for an updated legislation regulating the use of plants produced by genetic engineering or genome editing, especially in the European Union. Established more than 25 years ago and based on a clear distinction between transgenic and conventionally bred plants, the current EU Directives fail to accommodate the new continuum between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. Despite the fact that the Directive 2001/18/EC contains both process- and product-related terms, it is commonly interpreted as a strictly process-based legislation. In view of several new emerging techniques which are closer to the conventional breeding than common genetic engineering, we argue that it should be actually interpreted more in relation to the resulting product. A legal guidance on how to define plants produced by exploring novel genome editing techniques in relation to the decade-old legislation is urgently needed, as private companies and public researchers are waiting impatiently with products and projects in the pipeline. We here outline the process in the EU to develop a legislation that properly matches the scientific progress. As the process is facing several hurdles, we also compare with existing frameworks in other countries and discuss ideas for an alternative regulatory system.

Summary 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.

No abstract

No abstract

This review describes the Swedish approach to directed mutagenesis in plants and puts it in a comparative European perspective. Directed mutagenesis is accomplished by a number of genome editing techniques; however, the legal status of these techniques and their resulting products is uncertain in the European Union (EU) as there is no political consensus on whether or not these should be regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A number of cases have developed over the past few years, putting the GMO regulatory framework to the test. These include oilseed rape developed by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis, Arabidopsis developed by clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat-Cas9, and the case on mutagenesis for which the French Court requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU. In this review, the involvement of the Swedish Government and governmental authorities in these cases is described and compared with that of other EU member states and/or EU entity statements and reports. Various approaches to the definition of recombinant nucleic acids are also discussed, as this is crucial for the EU GMO definition thus affecting the legal status of products developed by directed mutagenesis.

The European Commission's Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, under the European Green Deal, acknowledges that innovative techniques, including biotechnology, may play a role in increasing sustainability. At the same time, organic farming will be promoted, and at least 25% of the EU's agricultural land shall be under organic farming by 2030. How can both biotechnology and organic farming be developed and promoted simultaneously to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? We illustrate that achieving the SDGs benefits from the inclusion of recent innovations in biotechnology in organic farming. This requires a change in the law. Otherwise, the planned increase of organic production in the F2F strategy may result in less sustainable, not more sustainable, food systems.The European Commission (EC) recently launched its Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy. This strategy is a cornerstone of the European Green Deal and is instrumental in working toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [32]. The F2F strategy acknowledges that new innovative techniques, including biotechnology, may play a role in increasing sustainability. At the same time, organic farming will be promoted, and at least 25% of the EU's agricultural land shall be under organic farming by 2030.

Recent reductions in the public commitment to potato breeding in Sweden, Norway and Finland call for an evaluation of the current situation regarding the commercial basis for, and structure of, potato breeding in these countries. We here review the extent of cultivation, processing and consumption of table potato in Sweden, as well as provide an overview of the potato breeding tools and programmes in the three countries. We then discuss various strategies to provide long-term stability and increase the impact of public potato breeding, based on the similar overall conditions for potato cultivation across the Fennoscandian region. The conclusions are twofold; first, an increased long-term funding of the public potato breeding programmes is necessary to maintain a minimum level of material, and second, a coordination of the breeding activities in the Fennoscandian region would be of great benefit to all involved stakeholders and allow an enhancement of the current national breeding programmes. In addition, we propose a minimum first field year population size for potato breeding.