![]() We trust that the forthcoming ruling will contribute to establishing regulatory clarity.” John Brennan, EuropaBio’s secretary-general said: “The advocate general’s opinion demonstrates that necessary steps are being taken towards clarifying the regulatory status of products that have been developed using the latest biotechnological tools and applications. The European commission is waiting for clarification from the courts before deciding whether new legislation – or an update of existing laws – could be needed for the new technology.ĮuropaBio, which represents the largest and most influential biotech industry groups in the EU, gave the court’s opinion a cautious thumbs up. ![]() “They have ‘off target’ effects that can inadvertently disturb the biochemistry of organisms leading to unintended outcomes which – if you’re making a new gene edited food crop, for example – could result in the unexpected production of a new toxin or allergenic substance.įriends of the Earth Europe called for the European court of justice “to not uphold today’s opinion, and instead make sure that all new genetically modified foods and crops are properly regulated.” “None of these gene editing methods are perfect,” he told the Guardian. But in a complex preliminary opinion, Michal Bobek advised that “organisms obtained by mutagenesis” should not be seen as genetically modified, unless they contained recombinant nucleic acid molecules or other GM organisms.īiotech industries argue that gene editing-type alterations could occur naturally through evolution, but critics counter that they involve genetic mutations that are lab-based and artificial by definition.ĭr Michael Antoniou, the head of the molecular genetics department at King’s College London, said exempting new plant-breeding technologies from GM laws was “wrong and potentially dangerous”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |