Normative Criteria and Their Inclusion in a Regulatory Framework for New Plant Varieties Derived From Genome Editing

Abstract

Any legal regulation has to take into account fundamental interests and concerns, whether of private or public nature. This applies in particular to the politically and socially sensitive question of regulating plant biotechnology. With the advent of new breeding techniques, such as genome editing, new challenges are arising for legislators around the world. However, in coping with them not only the technical particularities of the new breeding techniques must be taken into account but also the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests of the various stakeholders. In order to be able to draft a suitable regulatory regime for these new techniques, the different interests and concerns at play are identified. Subsequently, a determination is made on how these interests relate to each other, before regulatory concepts to reconcile the conflicting demands are presented. The examined normative criteria, which can have an impact on regulatory decisions regarding genome edited plants and products derived from them, include: industry interests, farmer interests, public opinion, consumer rights and interests, human health and food safety, food security, environmental protection, consistency, and coherence of the regulatory framework and ethical or religious convictions. Since those interests differ from country to country depending on the respective political, economic, and social circumstances, the respective legislator has the task of identifying these normative criteria and must find a suitable balance between them. To this end, a concept is developed on how the different interests can be related to each other and how to deal with conflicting and irreconcilable demands. Additionally, a legislator may have recourse to a number of further analyzed regulatory measures. An approval or notification procedure can be used for a risk assessment or a socio-economic evaluation. Coexistence measures and labeling provisions are able to reconcile interests that are at odds with each other and the precautionary principle can justify certain safeguard measures. As a result, the individual country-specific regulatory outcomes regarding genome edited plants are likely to be as manifold as the interests and regulatory measures at hand.

CRISPR/Cas- and Topical RNAi-Based Technologies for Crop Management and Improvement: Reviewing the Risk Assessment and Challenges Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture

“…Further studies and more exhaustive field surveys are very welcomed to endorse public acceptance and perception of these new agricultural technologies. Ultimately, to assure a sustainable production of high-quality food, the entire production chain must be ruled with parsimony and balance between environmental, economic, and social claims, as well as be assisted ideally by strong public policies that safeguard consumers’ health and their concerns ( Montenegro, 2016 ; Hamburger, 2018 ).…”

Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing

“…Have the technologies that could have supported the organic movement (pesticide and fungicide free crops) been thwarted because being anti‐GM has been a great marketing tool. GE like GM has the potential to increase farmer profits and thus lower consumer prices, potentially widening the price difference between organic and non‐organic products and negatively impacting the organic market (Hamburger, ). Indeed, the organic sector has been quick to welcome the ECJ ruling (https://www.ifoam-eu.org/en/news/2018/07/25/press-release-new-genetic-engineering-techniques-be-regulated-gmos-ifoam-eu-welcomes).…”