The development of new genetic modification techniques (nGMs), also referred to as “new (breeding) techniques” in other sources, has raised worldwide discussions regarding their regulation. Different existing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cover nGMs to varying degrees. Coverage of nGMs depends mostly on the regulatory trigger. In general two different trigger systems can be distinguished, taking into account either the process applied during development or the characteristics of the resulting product. A key question is whether regulatory frameworks either based on process- or product-oriented triggers are more advantageous for the regulation of nGM applications. We analyzed regulatory frameworks for GMO from different countries covering both trigger systems with a focus on their applicability to plants developed by various nGMs. The study is based on a literature analysis and qualitative interviews with regulatory experts and risk assessors of GMO in the respective countries. The applied principles of risk assessment are very similar in all investigated countries independent of the applied trigger for regulation. Even though the regulatory trigger is either process- or product-oriented, both triggers systems show features of the respective other in practice. In addition our analysis shows that both trigger systems have a number of generic advantages and disadvantages, but neither system can be regarded as superior at a general level. More decisive for the regulation of organisms or products, especially nGM applications, are the variable criteria and exceptions used to implement the triggers in the different regulatory frameworks. There are discussions and consultations in some countries about whether changes in legislation are necessary to establish a desired level of regulation of nGMs. We identified five strategies for countries that desire to regulate nGM applications for biosafety–ranging from applying existing biosafety frameworks without further amendments to establishing new stand-alone legislation. Due to varying degrees of nGM regulation, international harmonization will supposedly not be achieved in the near future. In the context of international trade, transparency of the regulatory status of individual nGM products is a crucial issue. We therefore propose to introduce an international public registry listing all biotechnology products commercially used in agriculture.

Several diazotrophic species of Azoarcus spp. occur as endophytes in the pioneer plant Kallar grass. The purpose of this study was to screen Asian wild rice and cultivated Oryza sativa varieties for natural association with these endophytes. Populations of culturable diazotrophs in surface‐sterilized roots were characterized by 16S rDNA sequence analysis, and Azoarcus species were identified by genomic fingerprints. A. indigens and Azoarcus sp. group C were detected only rarely, whereas Azoarcus sp. group D occurred frequently in samples of flooded plants: in 75% of wild rice, 80% of land races of O. sativa from Nepal and 33% of modern cultivars from Nepal and Italy. The putatively endophytic populations of diazotrophs differed with the rice genotype. The diversity of cultured diazotrophs was significantly lower in wild rice species than in modern cultivars. In Oryza officinalis (from Nepal) and O. minuta (from the Philippines), Azoarcus sp. group D were the predominant diazotrophic putative endophytes in roots. In contrast, their number was significantly lower in modern cultivars of O. sativa, whereas numbers and diversity of other diazotrophs, such as Azospirillum spp., Klebsiella sp., Sphingomonas paucimobilis, Burkholderia sp. and Azorhizobium caulinodans, were increased. In land races of O. sativa, the diazotrophic diversity was equally high; however, Azoarcus sp. was found in high apparent numbers. Similar differences in populations were also observed in a culture‐independent approach comparing a wild rice (O. officinalis) and a modern‐type O. sativa plant: in clone libraries of root‐associated nitrogenase (nifH ) gene fragments, the diazotrophic diversity was lower in the wild rice species. New lineages of nifH genes were detected, e.g. one deeply branching cluster within the anf (iron) nitrogenases. Our studies demonstrate that the natural host range of Azoarcus spp. extends to rice, wild rice species and old varieties being preferred over modern cultivars.

Gene drive organisms differ from “classical” genetically modified organisms in several crucial aspects. It would require new approaches for risk assessment to gauge their potential impact on the environment.

An intensely debated question is whether or how a mandatory environmental risk assessment (ERA) should be conducted for plants obtained through novel genomic techniques, including genome editing (GE). Some countries have already exempted certain types of GE applications from their regulations addressing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the European Union, the European Court of Justice confirmed in 2018 that plants developed by novel genomic techniques for directed mutagenesis are regulated as GMOs. Thus, they have to undergo an ERA prior to deliberate release or being placed on the market. Recently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published two opinions on the relevance of the current EU ERA framework for GM plants obtained through novel genomic techniques (NGTs). Regarding GE plants, the opinions confirmed that the existing ERA framework is suitable in general and that the current ERA requirements need to be applied in a case specific manner. Since EFSA did not provide further guidance, this review addresses a couple of issues relevant for the case-specific assessment of GE plants. We discuss the suitability of general denominators of risk/safety and address characteristics of GE plants which require particular assessment approaches. We suggest integrating the following two sets of considerations into the ERA: considerations related to the traits developed by GE and considerations addressing the assessment of method-related unintended effects, e.g., due to off-target modifications. In conclusion, we recommend that further specific guidance for the ERA and monitoring should be developed to facilitate a focused assessment approach for GE plants.

No abstract