Comparative Analysis: The Regulation of Plants Derived from Genome Editing in Argentina, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan and the United States

  • David HamburgerEmail author


A comparison of the cultivation of genetically modified organism (GMOs) and consumption of their products (Sect. 8.2) reveals the distinctness of each examined country’s approach towards GMOs. Not surprisingly, this finds its continuation in diverging and differing legal frameworks for their regulation. The diversity of approaches is not only reflected in different regulatory triggers and point of entries into the regulatory regime (Sect. 8.3), but also by varying labelling (Sect. 8.5) and coexistence provisions (Sect. 8.6). When taking a closer look at the regulatory status of genome edited plant varieties and the products derived from them, it becomes apparent that the differences of the regulatory frameworks manifest in the legal classification of those plants and their produce. Consequently, genome edited organisms (GEOs) are treated vastly differently by the examined legal regimes (Sect. 8.4). However, it should be borne in mind that some of the examined countries are currently working on a revision of their regulations (Sect. 8.7).


  1. Ata H, Ekstrom TL, Martínez-Gálvez G, Mann CM, Dvornikov AV, Schaefbauer KJ, Ma AC, Dobbs D, Clark KJ, Ekker SC, Burgess SM (2018) Robust activation of microhomology-mediated end joining for precision gene editing applications. PLoS Genet 14(9):e1007652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Government Department of Health, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (2018) Table of authorisations for commercial releases of GM plants (subset of list of licences involving Intentional Release). Accessed 20 Apr 2018
  3. Ayers K (2018) Plant breeder expands offerings for Western Canada. Accessed 23 July 2018
  4. Beckmann V, Soregaroli C, Wesseler J (2014) Coexistence. In: Smyth SJ, Phillips PWB, Castle D (eds) Handbook on agriculture, biotechnology and development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 372–391Google Scholar
  5. Blair R, Regenstein JM (2015) Genetic modification and food quality: a down to earth analysis. Wiley Blackwell, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calyxt (2018a) Products in our development pipeline. Accessed 19 July 2018
  7. Calyxt (2018b) Calyxt exceeds farmer adoption milestone for high-oleic soybean product launch. Accessed 19 July 2018
  8. Calyxt (2019a) Calyxt doubles 2018 high oleic soybean acres. Accessed 22 May 2019
  9. Calyxt (2019b) First commercial sale of Calyxt high oleic soybean oil on the U.S. market. Accessed 23 May 2019
  10. Calyxt, Inc. (2016) Calyxt completes production of 30 tons of its high oleic soybean product in Argentina. Accessed 19 Sept 2018
  11. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2013) DD 2013-100: determination of the safety of Cibus Canada Inc.’s Canola (Brassica napus L.) Event 5715. Accessed 19 July 2018
  12. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2014) Decision document DD2014-101 determination of the safety of BASF Canada Inc.’s Canola (Brassica napus) Event CLB-1. Accessed 19 July 2018
  13. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2018) Plants with Novel Traits (PNT) and novel feeds from plant sources approved in Canada. Accessed 9 May 2018
  14. Capalbo DMF, Suzuki MT (2017) The importance of Bacillus thuringiensis in the context of genetically modified plants in Brazil. In: Fiuza LM, Polanczyk RA, Crickmore N (eds) Bacillus thuringiensis and Lysinibacillus sphaericus: characterization and use in the field of biocontrol. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cibus (2018) Products. Accessed 23 July 2018
  16. Crothers L (2017) Australia agricultural biotechnology annual: 2017 agricultural biotechnology report. Accessed 20 Sept 2018
  17. Danielson E, Watters A (2017) Canada: agricultural biotechnology annual 2017. Accessed 20 Sept 2018
  18. Directive 94-08, Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants With Novel TraitsGoogle Scholar
  19. Eaton E (2013) Growing resistance: Canadian farmers and the politics of genetically modified wheat. University of Manitoba Press, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (2007) Commission Decision of 23 May 2007 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line 123.2.38) genetically modified for flower colour (2007/364/EC). Official Journal of the European Union L 138/50Google Scholar
  21. European Commission (2017) Modern biotechnologies in the agri-food sector. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  22. Eurostat (2018a) Grain maize and corn-cob-mix by area, production and humidity. Accessed 22 May 2018
  23. Eurostat (2018b) Green maize by area, production and humidity. Accessed 22 May 2018
  24. Falck-Zepeda J (2006) Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implications for developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 88:1200–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flachowsky G, Schafft H, Meyer U (2012) Animal feeding studies for nutritional and safety assessments of feeds from genetically modified plants: a review. J Verbr Lebensm 7:179–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2018) FAOSTAT. Accessed 28 May 2018
  27. Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. Fed Regist 57:22983–23005Google Scholar
  28. Gabriel A, Menrad K (2015) Cost of coexistence of GM and non-GM products in the food supply chains of rapeseed oil and maize starch in Germany. Agribusiness 31:472–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gustafson E (2014) We the eaters: if we change dinner, we can change the World. RodaleGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamburger D (2018) Normative criteria and their inclusion in a regulatory framework for new plant varieties derived from genome editing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 6Google Scholar
  31. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2014) Event Name: 123.2.38 (40644). Accessed 18 May 2018
  32. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2016) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016: ISAAA Brief No. 52Google Scholar
  33. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018a) GM Approval Database, MON71800. Accessed 7 June 2018
  34. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018b) GM Crops List. Accessed 7 June 2018
  35. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018c) GM Approval Database. Accessed 9 May 2018
  36. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018d) GM Approval Updates. Accessed 9 May 2018
  37. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018e) GM Approval Database - EU. Accessed 18 May 2018
  38. James C (2015) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2015 ISAAA brief No. 51: 20th anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the global commercialization of biotech crops and biotech crop highlights in 2015. ISAAA, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  39. Juma C (2016) Innovation and its enemies: why people resist new technologies. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kumar A, Sopory SK (eds) (2008) Recent advances in plant biotechnology and its applications: Prof. Dr. Karl-Hermann Neumann commemorative volume. I.K. International Pub. House, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuntz M (2018) Transgenic plants and beyond. Advances in botanical research, vol 86. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  42. Kurai T, Sato S (2018) Environment ministry proposes policy for regulating genome editing. Accessed 29 May 2019
  43. La Capital (2018) INTA y dos alimentos del futuro: “superpapas” y leche no alergénica. Accessed 20 July 2018
  44. Lee M (2014) EU environmental law, governance and decision-making, 2nd ed. Modern studies in European law, vol 43. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Li L, He Z-Y, Wei X-W, Gao G-P, Wei Y-Q (2015) Challenges in CRISPR/CAS9 delivery: potential roles of nonviral vectors. Hum Gene Ther 26:452–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Li L, Hu S, Chen X (2018) Non-viral delivery systems for CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing: challenges and opportunities. Biomaterials 171:207–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lino CA, Harper JC, Carney JP, Timlin JA (2018) Delivering CRISPR: a review of the challenges and approaches. Drug Deliv 25:1234–1257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lucht JM (2015) Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses 7:4254–4281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodriguez-Cerezo E (2012) Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nat Biotechnol 30:231–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ma J, Xiang H, Donnelly DJ, Meng F-R, Xu H, Durnford D, Li X-Q (2017) Genome editing in potato plants by agrobacterium-mediated transient expression of transcription activator-like effector nucleases. Plant Biotechnol Rep 11:249–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Magnan A (2016) When wheat was king: the rise and fall of the Canada-UK wheat trade. UBC Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  52. Ministerio de Agroindustria (2011) Resolución-763/2011. Accessed 24 July 2018
  53. Ministerio de Agroindustria (2018) OGM Comerciales. Accessed 18 May 2018
  54. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2008) Field trail guidelines for genetically modified crops. Accessed 22 Sept 2018
  55. Ministry of Health and Welfare (2000a) Announcement no. 232. Accessed 31 May 2019
  56. Ministry of Health and Welfare (2000b) Announcement no. 233. Accessed 31 May 2019
  57. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2018) Procedure for safety assessment. Accessed 31 May 2019
  58. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2019) Food produced by recombinant DNA techniques. Accessed 31 May 2019
  59. Newton ED (2014) GMO food: a reference handbook. Contemporary world issues. ABC-CLIO, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  60. Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (2008) GM crops and stockfeed - fact sheet. Accessed 23 May 2018
  61. Oh J, Ezezika OC (2014) To label or not to label: balancing the risks, benefits and costs of mandatory labelling of GM food in Africa. Agric Food Sec 3:8–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. PlantForm (2015) PlantForm, University of Calgary research collaboration awarded NSERC Engage Grant. Accessed 23 July 2018
  63. Pratt S (2018) New herbicide-tolerant options coming soon for canola growers. New Seed Variety Guide 2018:10–13Google Scholar
  64. Rao VS (2015) Transgenic herbicide resistance in plants. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  65. Ricroch A, Clairand P, Harwood W (2017) Use of CRISPR systems in plant genome editing: toward new opportunities in agriculture. Emerg Topics Life Sci 1:169–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schenkelaars P, Wesseler J (2016) Farm-level GM coexistence policies in the EU: context, concepts and developments. EuroChoices 15:5–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (2011) Resolución-701/2011. Accessed 24 July 2018
  68. Smyth S, Phillips PWB, Khachatourians GG (2004) Regulating the liabilities of agricultural biotechnology. CABI Publishing, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Spielman DJ, Zambrano P (2013) Policy, investment, and partnerships for agricultural biotechnology research in Africa: emerging evidence. In: Falck-Zepeda J, Gruère G, Sithole-Niang I (eds) Genetically modified crops in Africa: economic and policy lessons from countries South of the Sahara. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 183–205Google Scholar
  70. United States Department of Agriculture (2018a) Secretary perdue issues USDA statement on plant breeding innovation. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
  71. United States Department of Agriculture (2018b) Petitions for determination of nonregulated status. Accessed 9 May 2018
  72. United States Department of Agriculture (2018c) Details on USDA plant breeding innovations. Accessed 13 Aug 2018
  73. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (2018) National bioengineered food disclosure standard: final rule. Fed Regist 83:65814–65876Google Scholar
  74. United States Department of Agriculture (2019) Movement of certain genetically engineered organisms. Fed Regist 84:26514–26541Google Scholar
  75. Venus TJ, Dillen K, Punt MJ, Wesseler JHH (2017) The costs of coexistence measures for genetically modified maize in Germany. J Agric Econ 68:407–426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Viljoen CD, Marx GM (2013) The implications for mandatory GM labelling under the Consumer Protection Act in South Africa. Food Control 31:387–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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 15:319–338Google Scholar
  78. Wiseman G (2009) Real-time PCR: application to food authenticity and legislation. In: Logan J, Edwards K, Saunders N (eds) Real-time PCR: current technology and applications. Caister Academic Press, Norfolk, pp 253–267Google Scholar
  79. Wolt JD, Wang K, Yang B (2016) The regulatory status of genome-edited crops. Plant Biotechnol J 14:510–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations