Abstract
The advent of genome editing in plant breeding and the resulting blurring of the boundaries between natural and artificially induced genetic modifications present regulators worldwide with new challenges. In such a time of regulatory uncertainty, or dispute over how to regulate genome edited plants, legislators are well advised to seek external guidance on how this issue could be addressed appropriately. Since genome edited organisms pose similar challenges to regulatory systems around the world, it seems sensible to study the practices of other jurisdictions in order to draw lessons for one’s own regulatory efforts. To be able to choose from a diverse selection of regulatory approaches, countries with differing attitudes towards genetically modified plants were chosen as research objects. Broadly speaking the studied jurisdictions can be divided into those which embrace the cultivation of GMOs (Argentina, Canada and the USA), those which are reluctant adopters of GMOs (Australia and Europe) and a de facto absolute abstainer from GM crop cultivation (Japan). Based on a comparative analysis of the regulatory frameworks and an identification of possible best practices, the conclusion is made that a consistent regulatory regime should be product-based, i.e. the risk regulation should be triggered by a plant’s traits. From a procedural point of view, an obligatory upstream procedure should be used for channelling the respective plant into the relevant regulatory framework. This process can be further catalysed by a voluntary early consultation procedure. Within such a framework the one-door-one-key principle should apply, which means that all relevant authorizations are granted upon a single application.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
As is the case in the European Union (EU) with regard to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment of 25 July 2018 (CJEU, C-528/16, Confédération paysanne et al.). Cf. European Court of Justice (2018).
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
The situation seems at a first glance similar to the European approach. However, since the EU has the competence to shape the legal framework for marketing of GMO based on its own volition, the European situation is in this concrete instance more comparable to that of a federal state—even though the EU is not a state entity in legal terms.
- 7.
Directive 94-08, Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel Traits, Sec. 1.
- 8.
European Court of Justice (2018).
- 9.
European Court of Justice (2018), para. 29.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Cf. for this paragraph Sato (2015), 6, 15–16.
- 14.
- 15.
“Emerging best practices” describes a process or method for which there is only a low degree of scientific evidence to qualify as a best practice. In the case of a “promising best practice” the existing quantitative and qualitative data is elevated to a moderate level. An “evidence-based best practice” is supported by a convincing and strong set of scientific evidence regarding its general effectiveness and efficiency. For a more detailed illustration of different best practice categories and sources of best practice evidence see Spencer et al. (2013); Bhatta (2002), p. 102; Moore and Browne (2017), p. 385; Canadian Homelessness Research Network (2013), p. 7; Myers et al. (2006), p. 374.
An example for a widely adopted and well-regarded best practice in the realm of GMO regulation are the international frameworks for risk assessment. Cf. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2226 U.N.T.S. 208, 39 ILM 1027, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/ExCOP/1/3 42; UNEP International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology; OECD Safety Considerations for Biotechnology 1992. See also the OECD Consensus Documents on Safety Assessment of Transgenic Organisms.
- 16.
Overman and Boyd (1994), p. 69.
- 17.
Bardach and Patashnik (2016), p. 125.
- 18.
For an overview see Hamburger (2018).
- 19.
- 20.
Purnhagen and Wesseler (2016), p. 151.
- 21.
Purnhagen and Wesseler (2016), p. 151.
- 22.
For a detailed illustration of that principle’s application in the EU see van der Meulen and Yusuf (2014).
- 23.
For more on this issue see Voigt and Klima (2017), p. 335.
- 24.
Dederer (1998), pp. 32–49.
- 25.
References
Bardach E, Patashnik EM (2016) A practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving, 5th edn. CQ Press/SAGE, Los Angeles/London
Bendixsen S, de Guchteneire P (2003) Best practices in immigration services planning. J Policy Anal Manage 22:677–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10163
Bhatta G (2002) Evidence-based analysis and the work of policy shops. Aust J Public Adm 61:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.00288
Bretschneider S, Marc-Aurele FJ, Wu J (2005) “Best Practices” research: a methodological guide for the perplexed. J Public Adm Res Theory 15:307–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui017
Callaway E (2018) CRISPR plants now subject to tough GM laws in European Union. Nature 560:16. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05814-6
Canadian Homelessness Research Network (2013) What works and for whom? A hierarchy of evidence for promises practices research. Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press, Toronto
Dederer H-G (1998) Gentechnikrecht im Wettbewerb der Systeme: Freisetzung im deutschen und US-amerikanischen Recht. Springer, Heidelberg
European Court of Justice (2018) Case C-528/16, Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM: dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès v. Premier ministre, Ministre de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt, ECLI:EU:C:2018:583
Globus R, Qimron U (2018) A technological and regulatory outlook on CRISPR crop editing. J Cell Biochem 119:1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.26303
Hamburger D (2018) Normative criteria and their inclusion in a regulatory framework for new plant varieties derived from genome editing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 6:176
Herring RJ (2008) Opposition to transgenic technologies: ideology, interests and collective action frames. Nat Rev Genet 9:458–463. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2338
Herring R, Paarlberg R (2016) The political economy of biotechnology. Annu Rev Resour Econ 8:397–416. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095506
Lappin J (2018) EU Court extends GMO Directive to new plant breeding techniques_Brussels. https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/EU%20Court%20Extends%20GMO%20Directive%20to%20New%20Plant%20Breeding%20Techniques_Brussels%20USEU_Belgium%20EU-28_7-27-2018.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2018
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca (2015) Resolución 173/2015, Boletin Oficial N° 33.131:40–41
Moore C, Browne C (2017) Emerging innovations, best practices, and evidence-based practices in elder abuse and neglect: a review of recent developments in the field. J Fam Violence 32:383–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9812-4
Myers SM, Smith HP, Martin LL (2006) Conducting best practices research in public affairs. Int J Public Policy 1:367–378. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPP.2006.010842
Neslen A (2018) Gene-edited plants and animals are GM foods, EU court rules. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/25/gene-editing-is-gm-europes-highest-court-rules. Accessed 19 Sept 2018
OECD Consensus Documents on Safety Assessment of Transgenic Organisms. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/harmonisation-of-regulatory-oversight-in-biotechnology_23114622. Accessed 9 Sept 2018
Overman ES, Boyd KJ (1994) Best practice research and postbureaucratic reform. J Public Adm Res Theory 4:67–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037195
Purnhagen K, Wesseler J (2016) The “Honey” Judgment of Bablok and Others Versus Freistaat Bayern in the Court of Justice of the European Union: implications for co-existence. In: Kalaitzandonakes NG, Phillips PWB, Wesseler J, Smyth SJ (eds) The coexistence of genetically modified, organic and conventional foods: government policies and market practices. Springer, New York, pp 149–165
Sato S (2015) Japan’s regulatory system for GE crops continues to improve. https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Tokyo_Japan_7-13-2015.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2019
Schenkel W, Leggewie G (2015) New techniques in molecular biology challenge the assessment of modified organisms. J Consum Protect Food Saf 10:263–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-015-0958-4
Science Media Centre (2018) Expert reaction to Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that GMO rules should cover plant genome editing techniques. http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-ruling-that-gmo-rules-should-cover-plant-genome-editing-techniques/. Accessed 20 Sept 2018
Seitz C (2018) Modifiziert oder nicht? – Regulatorische Rechtsfragen zur Genoptimierung durch neue biotechnologische Verfahren. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW) 21:757–764
Spencer LM, Schooley MW, Anderson LA, Kochtitzky CS, DeGroff AS, Devlin HM, Mercer SL (2013) Seeking best practices: a conceptual framework for planning and improving evidence-based practices. Prev Chronic Dis 10. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd10.130186
Sprink T, Eriksson D, Schiemann J, Hartung F (2016) Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Rep 35:1493–1506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2
Stokstad E (2018) European court ruling raises hurdles for CRISPR crops. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/european-court-ruling-raises-hurdles-crispr-crops. Accessed 20 Sept 2018
van der Meulen B, Yusuf N (2014) One-Door-One-Key Principle: observations regarding integration of GM authorization procedures in the EU. Penn State Law Rev 118:877–891. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2605766
Voigt B, Klima J (2017) CRISPR-Plants & Co. – the Quest for Adequate Risk Regulation: Modern plant breeding techniques and the current legal framework for risk regulation in the European Union. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht:319–333
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dederer, HG., Hamburger, D. (2019). Introduction: Regulation of Plants Derived from Genome Editing—What Lessons To Be Learned from Other Countries?. In: Dederer, HG., Hamburger, D. (eds) Regulation of Genome Editing in Plant Biotechnology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17119-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17119-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17118-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17119-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)