New Plant Breeding Techniques Under Food Security Pressure and Lobbying

Shao, Qianqian; Punt, Maarten; Wesseler, Justus

doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01324

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the majority of experts are relatively optimistic about the potential of genome-edited crops, regardless of where they live, with the exception that diverging public acceptance could result in contradictory regulatory choices in different countries, which might create market barriers (e.g. Shao et al 2018 ).…”

Section: Results and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation in agriculture is pervasive. However, in spite of the success stories of twentieth century plant breeding, the twenty-first century has ushered in a set of challenges that solutions from the past century are unlikely to address. However, sustained research and the amalgamation of a number of disciplines has resulted in new breeding techniques (NBTs), such as genome editing, which offer the promise of new opportunities to resolve some of the issues. Here we present the results of an expert survey on the added potential benefits of genome-edited crops compared to those developed through genetic modification (GM) and conventional breeding. Overall, survey results reveal a consensus among experts on the enhanced agronomic performance and product quality of genome-edited crops over alternatives. The majority of experts indicated that the regulations for health and safety, followed by export markets, consumers, and the media play a major role in determining where and how NBTs, including genome editing, will be developed and used in agriculture. Further research is needed to gauge expert opinion after the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling establishing that site-specific mutagenic breeding technologies are to be regulated in the same fashion as GM crops, regardless of whether foreign DNA is present in the final variety. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11248-019-00118-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Results and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These concerns, in combination with the political economy related to the rents being generated and lost by the new methods, result in regulatory policies governing the introduction and use of products developed . The appropriate regulatory policies are widely discussed in the USA, the European Union (EU) and other countries . While a set of regulatory policies has been developed to govern the approval and use of so‐called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) developed by using transgenic methods, progress did not stop.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 The appropriate regulatory policies are widely discussed in the USA, the European Union (EU) and other countries. 2 While a set of regulatory policies has been developed to govern the approval and use of so-called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) developed by using transgenic methods, progress did not stop. More precise and cost-efficient methods have been developed, raising questions about their regulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximum vs minimum harmonization: what to expect from the institutional and legal battles in the EU on gene editing technologies

Purnhagen

Wesseler

2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New plant‐breeding technologies (NPBTs), including gene editing, are widely used and drive the development of new crops. However, these new technologies are disputed, creating uncertainty in how their application for agricultural and food uses will be regulated. While in North America regulatory systems respond with a differentiated approach to NPBTs, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has in effect made most if not all NPBT subject to the same regulatory regime as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This paper discusses from a law and economics point of view different options that are available for the EU's multi‐level legal order. Using an ex‐ante regulation versus ex‐post liability framework allows the economic implications of different options to be addressed. The results show that under current conditions, some options are more expensive than others. The least costly option encompasses regulating new crops derived from NPBTs similar to those used in ‘conventional’ breeding. The current regulatory situation in the EU, namely making the use of NPBTs subject to the same conditions as GMOs, is the most costly option. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

“…The comment from Secretary General John Brennan was somewhat more cautious, saying that the necessary regulatory clarity is still lacking and that the EU and its member states now need to engage in public dialogue with their citizens about genome editing (EuropaBio, ). Among supporters of organic agriculture, a discussion about the potential of genome editing for addressing solutions has started and this might have an impact on policymakers (Shao et al ., ). We agree and would add that one detail to start with is a new Eurobarometer specifically on the topic of genome editing, which would be of great help for the EC and the European Parliament (EP) to properly address the issues related to governance of precision breeding.…”

Section: The Eu Court Mutagenesis Ruling In An International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

New Plant Breeding Techniques Under Food Security Pressure and Lobbying

Cited by 26 publications

References 42 publications

Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion

Benefits of genome-edited crops: expert opinion

Maximum vs minimum harmonization: what to expect from the institutional and legal battles in the EU on gene editing technologies

A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About