[ad_1]
Seeds obtained by molecular methods will be subject to particularly stringent regulation in the EU in the future. The main questions and answers on the decision of the European Court of Justice.
Some saw the apocalypse come up, others thought that they were at the threshold of a new age – and then everything changed: the European Court of Justice after a year and a half, its verdict on the new genetic technology pleases. Quite unexpectedly, Luxembourg judges have ruled that plants cultivated with new tools such as Crispr-Cas scissors must in any case be regulated as genetic engineering. In his January opinion, the ECJ's general counsel, Michal Bobek, has nurtured the hope of many scientists, plant breeders and farmers that the new methods remain unregulated. But why did the verdict come? Here you will find the most important questions and answers
Why did the European Court of Justice treat this subject?
There are European directives on genetic engineering in the genotype of plants. The most important is the so-called 2001 release directive. It defines what is considered a genetically modified organism (GMO) under European law and what are the strict requirements to cultivate such GMOs. In the last 17 years, however, a new genetic engineering has been developed.
They mainly produce plants that, by definition, are not GMOs because they do not contain foreign genes but only small changes called mutations. The process by which they appear can therefore be called mutagenesis. However, conventional mutagenesis is exempt from regulation as genetic engineering. The French farmers' associations filed a complaint against this exception two years ago. The trial was referred to the European Court of Justice for clarification by the Court of Cassation
Decision and judgment of the ECJ: Modern breeding methods are considered as genetic engineering ” class=”lazyload teaserable-layout__image”/>
: Methods of modern reproduction are considered genetic engineering
The judges decided that plants to which mutations were added by new molecular biology techniques should be considered and labeled as genetically modified organisms. The judgment is binding on all EU Member States. The court only confirms that even organisms created by older mutagenesis processes should be subject to the GMO Directive. This concerns plants that have been irradiated with radioactivity or chemically treated to produce mutations. More than 3000 varieties of plants on the market come from this methodology
Is it possible to bypass the judgment?
If EU member states want to cultivate modified crops with modern methods, they can ask for a new interpretation. However, this would still be governed on the basis of the old liberation directive – and the judges have just investigated this case. The only other option would be an amendment to the European Genetic Engineering Law, that is to say an amendment to the 17-year directive
What are the new techniques?
Much has been done in recent months on the discussed Crispr-Cas technique, with which sections or individual components can be cut or replaced from the genome. Zinc finger nucleases, the Talen technique or the ODM process offer other possibilities for minor modification of the genetic material of living organisms.
Because these new methods work much better than conventional genetic engineering and are easier to use with fewer side effects. They are often grouped together as genome editing. Genetic material can be modified as if you were working on a computer program with text. Interventions with new methods can be so subtle that they can not be distinguished from natural mutations
Can the side effects of genome editing be excluded?
In particular, the Crispr technique has been repeatedly praised by scientists for their impressive accuracy. Recent studies indicate that the methods may not be as accurate as they have been for a long time. Beyond the desired interfaces in the genome, unwanted additional cleavages can occur. It is not known to what extent this also occurs in plants. Due to these issues and a number of other unanswered questions, opponents point out possible and still unpredictable technological hazards, which is why products must be made the subject of discussion. specific monitoring and regulations. However, random mutations also occur in conventional breeding. In the old mutagenesis procedures, which produce thousands of mutations in the genome through completely undirected radiation or chemicals, the consequences of treatment are even less obvious. Nevertheless, the ECJ considers them safer because they have already been used for a long time
. However, the European Court of Justice has spoken of risks. What are they?
If genome modification produces completely new features in the plant, they could be transmitted by pollens to wild or field crops in the region. This is at least an old hint, which was especially true for conventional plants of genetic engineering. Critics say that such crossings in nature are no longer recoverable. For this, the new property should give plants a clear advantage of survival in the environment. This is not always the case. In addition, new genetic engineering methods generally only result in changes that could also occur through conventional breeding. However, such changes pose no particular risk.
Are there any health risks?
For new methods, it is at least less likely than for the old genetic engineering. New methods do not usually transfer foreign genes and the tools themselves do not stay in the plant. But even the old genetic technology is considered by the experts as very safe. After twenty years of cultivation and use of genetically modified plants, there is no indication that the foods produced from these crops are harmful to human or animal health.
Up to now, the most comprehensive study to date is the Summary of the Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Plants Presented Two Years Ago by a Committee of Twenty Members of the I & # 39; American National Academies of Sciences
Fear of genetic engineering won
