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

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › Research

Authors

  • Martin Wasmer
  • Jürgen Robienski

Research Organisations

External Research Organisations

  • University of Geneva
View graph of relations

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)323-327
Number of pages5
JournalJournal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit
Volume13
Issue number3
Early online date1 Jun 2018
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2018

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

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Sustainable Development Goals

Cite this

Which organisms and technologies fall under the mutagenesis exemption of the European GMO-Directive? / Wasmer, Martin; Robienski, Jürgen.
In: Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, Vol. 13, No. 3, 09.2018, p. 323-327.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › Research

Download
@article{9652172bdc8e43be9c503b549606ee64,
title = "Which organisms and technologies fall under the mutagenesis exemption of the European GMO-Directive?",
abstract = "The European GMO-Directive{\textquoteright}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{\textquoteright}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 = "CJEU C-528/16, Directive 2001/18/EC, Genome editing, GMO, New breeding techniques, Site-directed mutagenesis",
author = "Martin Wasmer and J{\"u}rgen Robienski",
note = "Funding information: 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{\textquoteright}s group at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Geneva for hosting Martin Wasmer as visiting researcher. 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{\textquoteright}s group at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Geneva for hosting Martin Wasmer as visiting researcher. Opinion articles are not peer reviewed, but concise commentary articles with a reference to recent occasions and/or developments in the fields of food, feed and commodities as well as crop protection products, veterinary drugs, genetic engineering and consumer protection. Please email us your comments, criticisms, or differing points of view to: jvl@bvl.bund.de. The editorial office reserves the right to reject and to edit and/or condense articles for publication. This work was been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01GP1613D). Conflict of interest This work was been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01GP1613D).",
year = "2018",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1007/s00003-018-1166-9",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "323--327",
journal = "Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit",
issn = "1661-5751",
publisher = "Birkhauser Verlag Basel",
number = "3",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which organisms and technologies fall under the mutagenesis exemption of the European GMO-Directive?

AU - Wasmer, Martin

AU - Robienski, Jürgen

N1 - Funding information: 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. 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. Opinion articles are not peer reviewed, but concise commentary articles with a reference to recent occasions and/or developments in the fields of food, feed and commodities as well as crop protection products, veterinary drugs, genetic engineering and consumer protection. Please email us your comments, criticisms, or differing points of view to: jvl@bvl.bund.de. The editorial office reserves the right to reject and to edit and/or condense articles for publication. This work was been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01GP1613D). Conflict of interest This work was been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant No. 01GP1613D).

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - CJEU C-528/16

KW - Directive 2001/18/EC

KW - Genome editing

KW - GMO

KW - New breeding techniques

KW - Site-directed mutagenesis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047898075&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00003-018-1166-9

DO - 10.1007/s00003-018-1166-9

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85047898075

VL - 13

SP - 323

EP - 327

JO - Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit

JF - Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit

SN - 1661-5751

IS - 3

ER -