Advertisement

Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 323–327 | Cite as

Which organisms and technologies fall under the mutagenesis exemption of the European GMO-Directive?

  • Martin Wasmer
  • Jürgen Robienski
Opinion article

Abstract

The European GMO-Directive’s (2001/18/EC) mutagenesis exemption may exempt organisms produced by genome editing from the legal obligations of the Directive, according to the recently published opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). We analyse his opinion and assess that the caveat in Art. 3(1) i.c.w. Annex 1B does not allow the use of nucleic acid vector constructs and CRISPR’s sgRNA. This represents an obstacle for genome editing in plants and animals, since most current setups use vectors. However, alternatives are under way.

Keywords

Site-directed mutagenesis Genome editing GMO Directive 2001/18/EC CJEU C-528/16 New breeding techniques 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article was written as part of the collaborative project Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Genome Editing in Agriculture (ELSA-GEA), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 01GP1613D). Special thanks to Prof. Marcel Weber’s group at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Geneva for hosting Martin Wasmer as visiting researcher.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This work was been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01GP1613D).

References

  1. Bobek M (2018) Reference for a preliminary ruling in the Case C-528/16. Opinion of Advocate General Bobek delivered on 18 January 2018. Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2 M, CSFV 49, OGM dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature & Progrès vs. Premier ministre, Ministre de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt. (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France)). ECLI:EU:C:2018:20Google Scholar
  2. BVL (2017) Stellungnahme zur gentechnikrechtlichen Einordnung von neuen Pflanzenzüchtungstechniken, insbesondere ODM und CRISPR-Cas9. BVL - Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit. https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/06_Gentechnik/gentechnikrechtlichen%20Einordnung%20von%20neuen%20Pflanzenz%C3%Bcchtungstechniken.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8. Accessed 10 Sept 2017
  3. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/18/oj. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
  4. Econ. & Soc. Comm. (1979) Opinion of the Economic and Social Commitee on the proposal for a Council Directive establishing safety measures against the conjectural risks associated with recombinant DNA work. Official Journal of the European Communities 247(2): 3–7. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.1979.247.01.0007.01.ENG Accessed 3 Mar 2018
  5. Griebsch T (2018) Anwendbarkeit des Gentechnikgesetzes auf nach CRISPR/Cas9 verändertes Saatgut. Natur Recht 40:92–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10357-018-3293-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kahrmann J, Bömeke O, Leggewie G (2017) Aged GMO legislation meets new genome editing techniques. EurUP 15:176–182Google Scholar
  7. Martin EA, Hine R (2014) Recombinant DNA. In: A dictionary of biology, 6th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. eISBN: 9780191726507Google Scholar
  8. Ostertag A (2006) GVO-Spuren und Gentechnikrecht: die rechtliche Beurteilung und Handhabung von ungewollten Spuren gentechnisch veränderter Organismen in konventionell und ökologisch erzeugten Produkten. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  9. Podevin N, Davies HV, Hartung F et al (2013) Site-directed nucleases: a paradigm shift in predictable, knowledge-based plant breeding. Trends Biotechnol 31:375–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Robienski J, Wasmer M (2018) Produkte gezielter Mutagenese sind keine GVOs gemäß Art. 3 i.V.m. Anhang I B der Richtlinie 2001/18/EG. J Verbrauch Lebensm.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-017-1147-4
  11. Ronellenfitsch M (2016) GenTR/BioMedR, 95. Aktualisierung, Dezember 2016 (Ronellenfitsch). In: Recht der Gentechnik und Biomedizin: GenTR/BioMedR: EG-Recht, Gesetze, Verordnungen, Formulare, ZKBS-Empfehlungen, Beschlüsse des LAG, Richtlinien, Empfehlungen und Stellungnahmen von Institutionen und Vereinigungen., erste Ausgabe 1997. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, pp 32–46Google Scholar
  12. Singleton P, Sainsbury D (2006) Mutagenesis. In: Dictionary of microbiology and molecular biology. 3rd ed. Wiley, Chichester (West Sussex, UK)Google Scholar
  13. Sprink T, Metje J, Hartung F (2015) Plant genome editing by novel tools: TALEN and other sequence specific nucleases. Curr Opin Biotechnol 32:47–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2014.11.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Voss U (2006) Die Novelle der Freisetzungsrichtlinie - Richtlinie 2001/18/EG. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  15. Woo JW, Kim J, Kwon SI et al (2015) DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat Biotechnol 33:1162–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3389 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ethics and Law in the Life SciencesLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Département de PhilosophieUniversité de GenèveGenèveSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations