Department of Plant Breeding, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 101, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden.
College of Law, University of Oklahoma, 300 Timberdell Road, Norman, OK, 73019-5081, USA.
New Phytol. 2019 Jun;222(4):1673-1684. doi: 10.1111/nph.15627. Epub 2019 Jan 16.
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.
特殊的监管制度适用于重组核酸修饰产品。欧洲法院的一项裁决以一种方式对此监管制度进行了解释,即该制度也适用于新兴的诱变技术。其他地方的监管工作也在进行中。2015 年,阿根廷推出了一个监管框架,随后智利于 2017 年、巴西和哥伦比亚于近期跟进。2018 年 3 月,美国农业部宣布,如果通过传统育种也可以开发出经过基因组编辑的植物,那么它将不会对这些植物进行不同的监管。加拿大则采用了完全不同的方式,通过他们的“具有新型特性的植物”法规来监管。澳大利亚目前正在审查其《基因技术法》。本文说明了欧盟的做法与这里研究的大多数其他国家的做法之间的差异。虽然欧盟没有采取逐案处理的方法,但其他几个司法管辖区采取了这种方法。此外,欧盟法院的裁决遵循基于过程的方法,而大多数其他国家则更加强调对最终产品的监管。结论是,除非能够为定向诱变产品建立有效的身份保存系统,否则这种差异将导致异步批准和国际贸易中断的风险。