[ad_1]
The decision of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) was eagerly awaited by the environmental actors, who claim that these products are housed in the same way as conventional GMOs, even if they are obtained without insertion of
The organisms obtained by this method are also GMOs "insofar as the techniques and methods of mutagenesis modify the genetic material of an organism in a manner that does not occur naturally" , according to the Luxembourg-based Court.
They therefore fall "in principle from the scope of the GMO Directive" which prescribes a set of rules for authorization, traceability, labeling and surveillance
Whereas conventional GMOs are the result of the introduction of an external gene into a seed (transgenesis), mutagenesis enables the genome of a living species to be modified without inserting any Foreign DNA. These techniques have made it possible to develop seed varieties resistant to certain herbicides, the status of which has been debated for several years.
An exception
Organisms obtained by mutagenesis must be subject to the Directive on GMOs, except for one exception, when they are the result of techniques "which have been traditionally used for various applications and whose safety has been proven for a long time", says the CJEU.
On the other hand, the Court affirms that the Directive and its constraints do apply to organisms obtained by means of new mutagenesis techniques which did not exist when European legislation was adopted in 2001.
Indeed , the risks badociated with the use of these new technologies "could be similar to those resulting from the production and diffusion of GMOs by transgenesis". Notably because they allow the production of varieties "at a pace and proportions not commensurate" with those of clbadical mutagenesis.
This is a case in France that gave rise to the judgment of the CJEU : the peasant Confederation, an agricultural union, had contested with other organizations the exclusion of these organizations from the scope of the rules concerning GMOs before the Council of State, which in turn asked the opinion of the European justice, rendered Wednesday.
"Historical decision"
"We are happy with this decision," said one of the founders of the Confederation Paysanne, Guy Kastler, to AFP Welcoming that "all products, including animals, obtained by techniques developed after 2001 (…) should be regulated as GMOs"
He also described as "interesting" the possibility of adopting national rules for plants obtained p ar the older techniques. "The state will not be able to answer us that the European regulation prevents it from regulating them", underlined Mr. Kastler, who expects a strong pressure "of the industrialists on the States".
Greenpeace also hailed the decision of the European court, which confirms according to her the "warnings of the scientists who maintained that these genetic modifications can cause involuntary damage to the DNA with unexpected consequences".
"The dissemination of these new GMOs in the environment without proper security measures is illegal and irresponsible, "said Franziska Achterberg, director of food policy at Greenpeace.
The Friends of the Earth network of badociations also applauded a" landmark decision that goes to against the latest attempt by the biotech industry to impose unwanted genetically modified products in our fields and on our plates. "
On the contrary, a group of researchers, the French Association of Plant Biotechnologies (AFBV), lambasted an "astounding" decision of the Court. "It is not justice to make science but scientific bodies to decide on scientific facts," she said in a statement.
According to the AFBV, the decision of the European Justice risk of leading to "the de facto ban in the EU of these new technologies" with the key "very dark years for the future of European agriculture."
[ad_2]
Source link
