Skip to main content

Tipp

Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

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

share
TEILEN

Abstract

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).
Fußnoten
1
In the following any abstract reference to countries also includes the EU, even though strictly speaking it does not constitute a nation state.
 
2
Cf. Blair and Regenstein (2015), p. 85; Newton (2014), p. 202; Kuntz (2018), p. 183; Spielman and Zambrano (2013), p. 184; Juma (2016), p. 245; Capalbo and Suzuki (2017), p. 270.
 
3
Cf. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018d). This website gives an overview of the changes made to the database since July 2014. However, only new approvals are listed here. On the individual website for each event it is, however, indicated if the approval is still in force.
 
4
Those are seven events regarding ornamental flowers (carnations), MON810, Liberty Link Maize (T25) and the Amflora Potato; cf. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018e).
 
5
The database indicates that ornamental carnations with the event ‘Moonlight’ (event code 123.2.38) were approved for cultivation in 2007; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2014). However, the corresponding decision of the European Commission states clearly that ‘[t]he product may be put to ornamental use only, with the exception of cultivation’; European Commission (2007), Art.3. The ‘Moonberry’ (event code IFD-25958-3) and ‘Moonvelvet’ event (event code IFD-264Ø7-2) are listed as approved for cultivation and only on the website of the specific event, it is indicated that they have only been approved for import.
 
6
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2016), p. 5.
 
7
The less extensive cultivation of GM plant varieties in Canada could be explained with a smaller agricultural area. However, the total area of arable land in Canada was in 2015 even slightly higher than that of Argentina (43.6 million ha compared to 39.2 million ha); cf. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2018), Section Land Use—arable land.
 
8
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2016), p. 73.
 
9
See Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​3.​1.​1.
 
10
See Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​3.​1.​1.
 
11
Cf. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2016), p. 2.
 
12
In detail, these are: alfalfa, apple, bean, canola, carnation, chicory, cotton, creeping bentgrass, eggplant, eucalyptus, flax, maize, melon, papaya, petunia, plum, poplar, potato, rice, rose, soybean, squash, sugar beet, sugarcane, sweet pepper, tobacco, tomato, wheat. Cf. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018b).
 
13
Australian Government Department of Health and Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (2018).
 
14
280,422 ha cotton seed and 2,357,000 ha canola (rapeseed); cf. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2018), Section Crops—Australia—area harvested.
 
15
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018a). The non-approval of this glyphosate-resistant wheat variety is explained on the one hand by the lack of acceptance by the public; cf. Rao (2015), p. 343. On the other hand, however, it is also due to the fact that the pollen of wheat drifts much further than, for example, that of maize; cf. Gustafson (2014), p. 96. Detailed on this, using Canada as an example, Magnan (2016), pp. 151–157; Eaton (2013).
 
16
In 2016 the total harvested area of agricultural crops in Argentina amounted to 36,826,764 ha; cf. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2018), Section Crops—Argentina—area harvested.
 
17
Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (2008).
 
18
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2016), p. 90.
 
19
Cf. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018c).
 
20
In the EU GM soybean is not approved for cultivation. In the case of Japan GM soybeans are approved for cultivation but currently not cultivated. Cf. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2018c).
 
21
It is estimated that about 70–90% of the worldwide harvested GM crops are consumed as feedstock by food-producing animals; Flachowsky et al. (2012), p. 180; Lucht (2015), p. 4255.
 
22
However, on the national level voluntary negative labelling exist. In the case of Germany, the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture introduced the label “ohne Gentechnik” (engl. “without gene technology”), which indicates that - in the case of a food or food ingredient of animal origin—no genetically modified feed has been administered to the animal from which the food was obtained; cf. § 3a (4) EG-Gentechnik-Durchführungsgesetz (EGGenTDurchfG). However, it is still possible to feed such animals with genetically modified feed. For example, in the case of poultry, pigs or cattle, it is sufficient for the labelling “without gene technology” if they have not received any genetically modified feed 10 weeks, 4 months or 12 months respectively before slaughter. Cf. Appendix to § 3a (4) Sentence 2 EGGenTDurchfG.
 
23
Cf. La Capital (2018).
 
24
Calyxt, Inc. (2016).
 
25
For further details see Chap. 2 (Country Report on Argentina), Sect. 2.​5.
 
26
For further details see Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​5.
 
27
See for example PlantForm (2015).
 
28
Cf. For example Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2013). The second approved genome edited plant variety has never been tested in Canada, but the results of field trials conducted in the USA have been used during the approval procedure, cf. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2014).
 
29
For further details see Chap. 4 (Country Report on Canada), Sect. 4.​5.
 
30
Ayers (2018), Pratt (2018) and Cibus (2018).
 
31
For further details see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​5.
 
32
For further details see Chap. 6 (Country Report on Japan), Sect. 6.​4.
 
33
Cf. Ricroch et al. (2017), p. 178; Lusser et al. (2012), p. 233.
 
34
For further details see Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​8.​2.​2.
 
35
Calyxt (2018a).
 
36
Cibus (2018) and Pratt (2018).
 
37
Calyxt (2018b).
 
38
Dewey (2018).
 
39
Calyxt (2019a).
 
40
Calyxt (2019b).
 
41
For this section see Chap. 2 (Country Report on Argentina), Sect. 2.​3.​1.
 
42
Ministerio de Agroindustria (2011).
 
43
Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (2011).
 
44
For this section see Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​3.​1.
 
45
Gene Technology Act 2000, Para. 32.
 
46
Pursuant to Para. 10 Gene Technology Act 2000 “deal with, in relation to a GMO, means the following: (a) conduct experiments with the GMO; (b) make, develop, produce or manufacture the GMO; (c) breed the GMO; (d) propagate the GMO; (e) use the GMO in the course of manufacture of a thing that is not the GMO; (f) grow, raise or culture the GMO; (g) import the GMO; (h) transport the GMO; (i) dispose of the GMO; and includes the possession, supply or use of the GMO for the purposes of, or in the course of, a dealing mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (i).”
 
47
Gene Technology Act 2000, Para. 10.
 
48
For a detailed illustration of the Australian GMO definition, which considers exceptions as well, see Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​3.​1.​1.
 
49
See Standard 1.5.2 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and the further explanations in Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​3.​1.​2.
 
50
Cf. Section 3 of Standard 1.5.2 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
 
51
Cf. Standard 1.1.2 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
 
52
Cf. Standard 1.1.2 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
 
53
For this section see Chap. 4 (Country Report on Canada), Sect. 4.​3.​1.
 
54
The Seeds Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-8 and the Seeds Regulations, C.R.C.,c. 1400 refer only to seeds and not to plants. However, seed is very broadly defined as “any plant part of any species belonging to the plant kingdom, represented, sold or used to grow a plant”; Seeds Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-8, Para.2. Therefore, the corresponding plant is considered to be covered as well.
 
55
Seeds Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-8, Para. 3 (1) (b) in conjunction with Seeds Regulations, C.R.C.,c. 1400, Part V, Para 109 (1).
 
56
This is a rather simplified description of the exemption rules. For the detailed specification of exempted seeds see Seeds Regulations, C.R.C.,c. 1400, Part V, Para.108.
 
57
Cf. Seeds Regulations, C.R.C.,c. 1400, Para.110 (d).
 
58
Directive 94-08, Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants With Novel Traits, Sec.1. This is, however, not the legal definition used in Seeds Regulations, C.R.C.,c. 1400, Para.107 (1).
 
59
Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, Para. B.28.002.
 
60
Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, Para. B.28.001.
 
61
“genetically modify” is defined as “to change the heritable traits of a plant, animal or microorganism by means of intentional manipulation”; Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, Para. B.28.001.
 
62
Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, Para. B.28.001.
 
63
For this section see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​3.​1.
 
64
Cf. Art.4 (1) Directive 2001/18/EC; Art.3 (1) Regulation 1829/2003. Strictly speaking Directive 2009/41/EC, which is regulating the contained use, does, pursuant to Art.2 (b), not apply to GMOs but to genetically modified micro-organisms (so called GMMs). While every GMM is also a GMO within the meaning of the EU regulatory framework, not every GMO is at the same time a GMM.
 
65
For a detailed illustration of the European GMO definition see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​3.​1.
 
66
This aspect is further explained in see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​3.​2.
 
67
ECJ, Case C-528/16 Confédération paysanne and Others (2018), ECLI:EU:C:2018:583, para. 29.
 
68
ECJ, Case C-528/16 Confédération paysanne and Others (2018), ECLI:EU:C:2018:583, para. 28.
 
69
For this section see Chap. 6 (Country Report on Japan), Sect. 6.​3.​1.
 
70
Cf. Cartagena Law 2003, Art.4 and Art.12. The English translation of the official title of the Cartagena Law is “Act on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity through Regulations on the Use of Living Modified Organisms (Act No. 97 of 2003)”. This is commonly referred to as “Cartagena Law 2003”. The Cartagena Law uses the term “living modified organism” instead of “genetically modified organism”, as it is an act of implementation of the Cartagena Protocol which uses the term LMO instead of GMO.
 
71
Cartagena Law 2003, Art.2 (3).
 
72
Cartagena Law 2003, Art.2 (2).
 
73
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2018, 2019).
 
74
Ministry of Health and Welfare (2000a).
 
75
Ministry of Health and Welfare (2000b).
 
76
For this section see Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​3.​2.
 
77
Plant Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 7701–7786, § 7712 (a).
 
78
7 CFR Part 340.
 
79
7 CFR Part 340, § 340.0 (a).
 
80
7 CFR Part 340, § 340.1.
 
81
7 CFR Part 340, § 340.1. This is a significantly shortened version of the definition. For the full definition, see the legal text or Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​3.​2.​1, fn.64.
 
82
“Genetic engineering” is in that context defined as “genetic modification of organisms by recombinant DNA techniques”; 7 CFR Part 340, § 340.1.
 
83
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 USC §§ 136-136y, §136a (a).
 
84
“Plant-incorporated protectant” is defined as “a pesticidal substance that is intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for production of such a pesticidal substance. It also includes any inert ingredient contained in the plant, or produce thereof”; 40 C.F.R. Part 174, § 174.3.
 
85
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 331 (a).
 
86
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 342 (a) (2) (A).
 
87
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 342 (a) (2) (C) (i). The definition has been shortened considerably. For the complete definition, see the legal text.
 
88
“Food additive” is defined as “any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food […], if such substance is not generally recognized […] to be safe under the conditions of its intended use”; Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 321 (s).
 
89
Cf. Food and Drug Administration (1992), p. 22990.
 
90
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 348 (a).
 
91
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 321 (s).
 
92
Food and Drug Administration (1992), p. 22990.
 
93
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 342 (a) (2) (B).
 
94
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 346 (a).
 
95
Cf. Sect. 8.2.
 
96
Cf. Fig. 8.4 (Sect. 8.2.1.2), Fig. 8.6 (Sect. 8.2.1.2) and Fig. 8.7 (Sect. 8.2.1.2).
 
97
For this section see Chap. 2 (Country Report on Argentina), Sect. 2.​3.​2.
 
98
For this section see Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​3.​2.
 
99
For this section see Chap. 4 (Country Report on Canada), Sect. 4.​3.​2.
 
100
“Genetically modify” is defined as “to change the heritable traits of a plant, animal or microorganism by means of intentional manipulation”; Food and Drug Regulations, C.R.C., c. 870, Sec. B.28.001.
 
101
For this section see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​3.​2.
 
102
ECJ, Case C-528/16 Confédération paysanne and Others (2018), ECLI:EU:C:2018:583.
 
103
Strictly speaking, only herbicide-resistant plants created via ODM or SDN-1 have been subject to the ruling of the ECJ. The ruling of the ECJ refers to “techniques/methods of mutagenesis such as those at issue in the main proceedings”; ECJ, Case C-528/16 Confédération paysanne and Others (2018), ECLI:EU:C:2018:583, Para. 28. In the main proceedings it is only referred to ODM and SDN-1; Conseil d’État, n°388649 Confédération paysanne et autres (2016), Para. 23. It should be noted, however, that ODM and SDN-1 are here only mentioned as examples for modern directed mutagenesis using genetic engineering techniques (cf. the use “notamment”; engl. “including” or “in particular”). The opinion of the Advocate General referred also only exemplary (“such as”) to ODM and SDN-1; Opinion of the Advocate General Bobek, Case C-528/16 Confédération paysanne and Others (2018), Para. 46. Therefore, it can be argued that SDN-2 is directly covered as well by the judgment since SDN-2 can also be understood as a mutagenesis technique due to its close resemblance to ODM (both cause small changes to the DNA based on a template without incorporating foreign DNA into the genome).
 
104
Cf. the general assessment of the EU’s GMO definition above (Sect. 8.3.4). Since the ECJ ruled in paragraph 29 of the judgment in the case 528/16 that at least SDN-1 and ODM “alter the genetic material of an organism in a way that does not occur naturally” just based on the process used, the same is true a fortiori for SDN-2 and SDN-3 when applying the Court’s reasoning.
 
105
For this section see Chap. 6 (Country Report on Japan), Sect. 6.​3.​2.
 
106
Sato (2018a, 2018b).
 
107
Kurai and Sato (2018).
 
108
Sato (2019a).
 
109
Sato (2019a), p. 2.
 
110
Cf. Chap. 6 (Country Report on Japan), Sect. 6.​2.
 
111
Sato (2018c, d, e).
 
112
Sato (2019b).
 
113
Sato (2019c), p. 3.
 
114
Sato (2019c), pp. 3–4.
 
115
Sato (2019c), p. 5.
 
116
For this section see Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​8.
 
117
7 CFR Part 340, § 340.1.
 
118
Wolt et al. (2016), p. 511.
 
119
Cf. Li et al. (2018), pp. 209–212; Lino et al. (2018), p. 1241; Li et al. (2015), pp. 453–458.
 
120
Ma et al. (2017).
 
121
United States Department of Agriculture (2018a).
 
122
United States Department of Agriculture (2018c).
 
123
United States Department of Agriculture (2018c).
 
124
United States Department of Agriculture (2018c).
 
125
Otherwise, the EPA could have regulatory competences. Cf. Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​8.​1.
 
126
However, foreign genetic material is present in the plant in the intermediate steps.
 
127
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 - 399h, § 342 (a) (2) (B).
 
128
Cf. Fig. 8.4.
 
129
For this section see Chap. 2 (Country Report on Argentina), Sect. 2.​8.
 
130
For this section see Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​8.
 
131
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Standard 1.5.2, Sec. 4 (5).
 
132
For this section see Chap. 4 (Country Report on Canada), Sect. 4.​8.
 
133
For this section see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​8.
 
134
Cf. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Art.12 (1) in conjunction with Art.2.
 
135
For this section see Chap. 6 (Country Report on Japan), Sect. 6.​6.
 
136
For a list of the crops and the processed products made out of them that are subject to mandatory GMO labelling see Sato (2016), p. 23.
 
137
For this section see Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​6.
 
138
United States Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Marketing Service (2018).
 
139
National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, 7 USC §§ 1639-1639c, § 1639 (1).
 
140
Since part B refers explicitly to “the modification” described in part A, it is clear that both parts of the definition must be read together.
 
141
United States Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Marketing Service (2018), p. 65816.
 
142
For the distinction between “detection,” “identification,” and “traceability” see Hamburger (2018), section “Coexistence Measures and Identity Preservation Systems”. Nonetheless, a genetic alteration might be no longer detectable if the produce is processed or refined in a certain way. However this is not an issue that is specifically linked to genome edited plants but applies to all genetically modified crops and their products.
 
143
United States Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Marketing Service (2018), p. 65818.
 
144
Voigt and Klima (2017), p. 321.
 
145
United States Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Marketing Service (2018), p. 65872.
 
146
There exist, however, indicators that a higher threshold of 5% has only a rather small impact on the number of products which are requiring labelling. Cf. Viljoen and Marx (2013), p. 389; Oh and Ezezika (2014), p. 11.
 
147
Schenkelaars and Wesseler (2016), pp. 6–8; Lee (2014), p. 244; Beckmann et al. (2014), p. 376.
 
148
Kumar and Sopory (2008), p. 306; Smyth et al. (2004), p. 140; Wiseman (2009), p. 257. This and the previous paragraph was taken from Hamburger (2018).
 
149
For this section see Chap. 2 (Country Report on Argentina), Sect. 2.​9.
 
150
For this section see Chap. 3 (Country Report on Australia), Sect. 3.​9.
 
151
Crothers (2017), p. 20.
 
152
For this section see Chap. 4 (Country Report on Canada), Sect. 4.​9.
 
153
Danielson and Watters (2017), pp. 15–16.
 
154
For this section see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​9.
 
155
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2008) (in Japanese only).
 
156
For an overview over the different regional requirements see Sato (2016), pp. 17–21.
 
157
For this section see Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​5.
 
158
Lee (2014), p. 244.
 
159
Schenkelaars and Wesseler (2016), p. 9; Falck-Zepeda (2006), p. 1204; Gabriel and Menrad (2015), pp. 482, 484.
 
160
Venus et al. (2017), p. 421.
 
161
For this section see Chap. 2 (Country Report on Argentina), Sect. 2.​6.
 
162
Gene Technology Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019. https://​www.​legislation.​gov.​au/​Details/​F2019L00573/​. Accessed 7 June 2019.
 
163
Strictly speaking this is to some degree an oversimplification. Under certain circumstances an exempted organism could still be regarded as GMO and an organism here classified as GMO could be exempted by a different provision. For more details on this see Explanatory Statement: Select Legislative Instrument 2019 No. XX. Gene Technology Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019. https://​www.​legislation.​gov.​au/​Details/​F2019L00573/​. Accessed 7 June 2019, pp. 8–9.
 
164
Gene Technology Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019. https://​www.​legislation.​gov.​au/​Details/​F2019L00573/​. Accessed 7 June 2019, Sect. 25.
 
165
Gene Technology Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019. https://​www.​legislation.​gov.​au/​Details/​F2019L00573/​. Accessed 7 June 2019, Sect. 26
 
166
European Food Safety Authority (2012), p. 13.
 
167
Ata et al. (2018).
 
168
For this section see Chap. 4 (Country Report on Canada), Sect. 4.​6.
 
169
For this section see Chap. 5 (Country Report on the EU), Sect. 5.​6.
 
170
Cf. European Commission (2017).
 
171
Similar Lappin (2018), p. 3.
 
172
Cf. Chap. 6 (Country Report on Japan), Sect. 6.​5.
 
173
Cf. Sect. 8.4.5.
 
174
Sato (2019d).
 
175
United States Department of Agriculture (2019).
 
176
United States Department of Agriculture (2019), p. 26514.
 
177
United States Department of Agriculture (2019), p. 26537.
 
178
United States Department of Agriculture (2019), p. 26520.
 
179
United States Department of Agriculture (2019), p. 26519.
 
180
Cf. Chap. 7 (Country Report on the USA), Sect. 7.​9.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat 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):e1007652 CrossRef 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):e1007652 CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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 372–391 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 372–391
Zurück zum Zitat Blair R, Regenstein JM (2015) Genetic modification and food quality: a down to earth analysis. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester CrossRef Blair R, Regenstein JM (2015) Genetic modification and food quality: a down to earth analysis. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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 259–271 CrossRef 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 259–271 CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Directive 94-08, Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants With Novel Traits Directive 94-08, Assessment Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants With Novel Traits
Zurück zum Zitat Eaton E (2013) Growing resistance: Canadian farmers and the politics of genetically modified wheat. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg Eaton E (2013) Growing resistance: Canadian farmers and the politics of genetically modified wheat. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg
Zurück zum Zitat 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 138/50 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 138/50
Zurück zum Zitat Falck-Zepeda J (2006) Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implications for developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 88:1200–1208 CrossRef Falck-Zepeda J (2006) Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implications for developing countries. Am J Agric Econ 88:1200–1208 CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. Fed Regist 57:22983–23005 Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. Fed Regist 57:22983–23005
Zurück zum Zitat Gustafson E (2014) We the eaters: if we change dinner, we can change the World. Rodale Gustafson E (2014) We the eaters: if we change dinner, we can change the World. Rodale
Zurück zum Zitat Hamburger D (2018) Normative criteria and their inclusion in a regulatory framework for new plant varieties derived from genome editing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 6 Hamburger D (2018) Normative criteria and their inclusion in a regulatory framework for new plant varieties derived from genome editing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 6
Zurück zum Zitat International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2016) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016: ISAAA Brief No. 52 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2016) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016: ISAAA Brief No. 52
Zurück zum Zitat 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, Manila 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, Manila
Zurück zum Zitat Juma C (2016) Innovation and its enemies: why people resist new technologies. Oxford University Press, New York CrossRef Juma C (2016) Innovation and its enemies: why people resist new technologies. Oxford University Press, New York CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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 Delhi 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 Delhi
Zurück zum Zitat Kuntz M (2018) Transgenic plants and beyond. Advances in botanical research, vol 86. Academic Press, San Diego Kuntz M (2018) Transgenic plants and beyond. Advances in botanical research, vol 86. Academic Press, San Diego
Zurück zum Zitat Lee M (2014) EU environmental law, governance and decision-making, 2nd ed. Modern studies in European law, vol 43. Hart, Oxford Lee M (2014) EU environmental law, governance and decision-making, 2nd ed. Modern studies in European law, vol 43. Hart, Oxford
Zurück zum Zitat Magnan A (2016) When wheat was king: the rise and fall of the Canada-UK wheat trade. UBC Press, Vancouver Magnan A (2016) When wheat was king: the rise and fall of the Canada-UK wheat trade. UBC Press, Vancouver
Zurück zum Zitat Newton ED (2014) GMO food: a reference handbook. Contemporary world issues. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara Newton ED (2014) GMO food: a reference handbook. Contemporary world issues. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara
Zurück zum Zitat Pratt S (2018) New herbicide-tolerant options coming soon for canola growers. New Seed Variety Guide 2018:10–13 Pratt S (2018) New herbicide-tolerant options coming soon for canola growers. New Seed Variety Guide 2018:10–13
Zurück zum Zitat Rao VS (2015) Transgenic herbicide resistance in plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton Rao VS (2015) Transgenic herbicide resistance in plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Zurück zum Zitat Smyth S, Phillips PWB, Khachatourians GG (2004) Regulating the liabilities of agricultural biotechnology. CABI Publishing, Wallingford CrossRef Smyth S, Phillips PWB, Khachatourians GG (2004) Regulating the liabilities of agricultural biotechnology. CABI Publishing, Wallingford CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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 183–205 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 183–205
Zurück zum Zitat United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (2018) National bioengineered food disclosure standard: final rule. Fed Regist 83:65814–65876 United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (2018) National bioengineered food disclosure standard: final rule. Fed Regist 83:65814–65876
Zurück zum Zitat United States Department of Agriculture (2019) Movement of certain genetically engineered organisms. Fed Regist 84:26514–26541 United States Department of Agriculture (2019) Movement of certain genetically engineered organisms. Fed Regist 84:26514–26541
Zurück zum Zitat 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 15:319–338 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 15:319–338
Zurück zum Zitat 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 253–267 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 253–267
Metadaten
Titel
Comparative Analysis: The Regulation of Plants Derived from Genome Editing in Argentina, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan and the United States
verfasst von
David Hamburger
Copyright-Jahr
2019
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17119-3_8

Premium Partner