The European Union Court's Advocate General's Opinion and new plant breeding techniques

How resilient are farmers in Africa to climate shocks? A case study of Nigerian farmers

Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa remains highly vulnerable to climate related shocks, since most production relies on rainfall. It is important to accurately measure the resilience of farmers and farming communities to weather variabilities, for both government policy and farmer management responses. This paper develops a Resilience Index Framework, which is further used to assess the resilience of farmers to climate shocks in Nigeria. We conceptualized our Resilience Index (RI) in this study to be a composite function of 60 indicators encompassing four resilience domains namely, Economic & Financial Resilience (ER); Technical-know-how Resilience (TR); Social Resilience (SR); and Physical Resilience (PR). A three-stage standardization approach to construct the resilience index is taken in this study. In the first stage, each indicator is standardized. In the second stage, the resilience domain is computed by averaging the corresponding standardized indicators. In the final stage, the composite RI is computed by estimating the weighted average of all the resilience domains. The study uses the baseline survey data collected between 2021 and 2022 from a total of 5954 farmers in the rainforest, derived and guinea savannah agroecological zones of Nigeria. The result of the study shows that the majority (96.5%) of the farmers are less resilient to climate shocks, with only 0.9% economically & financially resilient, 1.4% socially resilient, 31.4% technically resilient, and 18.5% physically resilient. Finally, some recommend steps to be taken by the government and relevant stakeholders to improve the resilience of farmers through provision of good infrastructural facilities and subsidized improved resistant seed varieties are proposed.

Novel and emerging biotechnological crop protection approaches

Traditional breeding or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have for a long time been the sole approaches to effectively cope with biotic and abiotic stresses and implement the quality traits of crops. However, emerging diseases as well as unpredictable climate changes affecting agriculture over the entire globe force scientists to find alternative solutions required to quickly overcome seasonal crises. In this review, we first focus on cisgenesis and genome editing as challenging biotechnological approaches for breeding crops more tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses. In addition, we take into consideration a toolbox of new techniques based on applications of RNA interference and epigenome modifications, which can be adopted for improving plant resilience. Recent advances in these biotechnological applications are mainly reported for non-model plants and woody crops in particular. Indeed, the characterization of RNAi machinery in plants is fundamental to transform available information into biologically or biotechnologically applicable knowledge. Finally, here we discuss how these innovative and environmentally friendly techniques combined with traditional breeding can sustain a modern agriculture and be of potential contribution to climate change mitigation.

Responsible Learning About Risks Arising from Emerging Biotechnologies

Genetic engineering techniques (e.g., CRISPR-Cas) have led to an increase in biotechnological developments, possibly leading to uncertain risks. The European Union aims to anticipate these by embedding the Precautionary Principle in its regulation for risk management. This principle revolves around taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty and provides guidelines to take precautionary measures when dealing with important values such as health or environmental safety. However, when dealing with 'new' technologies, it can be hard for risk managers to estimate the societal or environmental consequences of a biotechnology that might arise once introduced or embedded in society due to that these sometimes do not comply with the established norms within risk assessment. When there is insufficient knowledge, stakeholders active in early developmental stages (e.g., researchers) could provide necessary knowledge by conducting research specifically devoted to what these unknown risks could entail. In theory, the Safe-by-Design (SbD) approach could enable such a controlled learning environment to gradually identify what these uncertain risks are, to which we refer as responsible learning. In this paper, we argue that three conditions need to be present to enable such an environment: (1) regulatory flexibility, (2) co-responsibility between researchers and regulators, and (3) openness towards all stakeholders. If one of these conditions would not be present, the SbD approach cannot be implemented to its fullest potential, thereby limiting an environment for responsible learning and possibly leaving current policy behind to anticipate uncertain risks.

Safe-by-Design: Stakeholders' Perceptions and Expectations of How to Deal with Uncertain Risks of Emerging Biotechnologies in the Netherlands

Advanced gene editing techniques such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR)/Cas have increased the pace of developments in the field of industrial biotechnology. Such techniques imply new possibilities when working with living organisms, possibly leading to uncertain risks. In the Netherlands, current policy fails to address these uncertain risks because risk classification is determined process-wise (i.e., genetically modified organism [GMO] and non-GMO), there is a strong focus on quantifiable risks, and the linearity within current governance (science-policy-society) hinders iterative communication between stakeholders, leaving limited room to anticipate uncertainties at an early stage of development. A suggested concept to overcome these shortcomings is the Safe-by-Design (SbD) approach, which, theoretically, allows stakeholders to iteratively incorporate safety measures throughout a technology's development process, creating a dynamic environment for the anticipation of uncertain risks. Although this concept originates from chemical engineering and is already widely applied in nanotechnology, for the field of biotechnology, there is no agreed upon definition yet. To explore the possibilities of SbD for future governance of biotechnology, we should gain insight in how various stakeholders perceive notions of risk, safety, and inherent safety, and what this implies for the applicability of SbD for risk governance concerning industrial biotechnology. Our empirical research reveals three main themes: (1) diverging expectations with regard to safety and risks, and to establish an acceptable level of risk; (2) different applications of SbD and inherent safety, namely, product- and process-wise; and (3) unclarity in allocating responsibilities to stakeholders in the development process of a biotechnology and within society.

Maximum vs minimum harmonization: what to expect from the institutional and legal battles in the EU on gene editing technologies

New plant-breeding technologies (NPBTs), including gene editing, are widely used and drive the development of new crops. However, these new technologies are disputed, creating uncertainty in how their application for agricultural and food uses will be regulated. While in North America regulatory systems respond with a differentiated approach to NPBTs, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has in effect made most if not all NPBT subject to the same regulatory regime as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This paper discusses from a law and economics point of view different options that are available for the EU's multi-level legal order. Using an ex-ante regulation versus ex-post liability framework allows the economic implications of different options to be addressed. The results show that under current conditions, some options are more expensive than others. The least costly option encompasses regulating new crops derived from NPBTs similar to those used in 'conventional' breeding. The current regulatory situation in the EU, namely making the use of NPBTs subject to the same conditions as GMOs, is the most costly option. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Roads Forward for European GMO Policy-Uncertainties in Wake of ECJ Judgment Have to be Mitigated by Regulatory Reform

This article gives an overview of legal and procedural uncertainties regarding genome edited organisms and possible ways forward for European GMO policy. After a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ judgment of 25 July 2018, C-528/16), organisms obtained by techniques of genome editing are GMOs and subject to the same obligations as transgenic organisms. Uncertainties emerge if genome edited organisms cannot be distinguished from organisms bred by conventional techniques, such as crossing or random mutagenesis. In this case, identical organisms can be subject to either GMO law or exempt from regulation because of the use of a technique that cannot be identified. Regulatory agencies might not be able to enforce GMO law for such cases in the long term. As other jurisdictions do not regulate such organisms as GMOs, accidental imports might occur and undermine European GMO regulation. In the near future, the EU Commission as well as European and national regulatory agencies will decide on how to apply the updated interpretation of the law. In order to mitigate current legal and procedural uncertainties, a first step forward lies in updating all guidance documents to specifically address genome editing specifically address genome editing, including a solution for providing a unique identifier. In part, the authorization procedure for GMO release can be tailored to different types of organisms by making use of existing flexibilities in GMO law. However, only an amendment to the regulations that govern the process of authorization for GMO release can substantially lower the burden for innovators. In a second step, any way forward has to aim at amending, supplementing or replacing the European GMO Directive (2001/18/EC). The policy options presented in this article presuppose political readiness for reform. This may not be realistic in the current political situation. However, if the problems of current GMO law are just ignored, European competitiveness and research in green biotechnology will suffer.

A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward

A special regulatory regime applies to products of recombinant nucleic acid modifications. A ruling from the European Court of Justice has interpreted this regulatory regime in a way that it also applies to emerging mutagenesis techniques. Elsewhere regulatory progress is also ongoing. In 2015, Argentina launched a regulatory framework, followed by Chile in 2017 and recently Brazil and Colombia. In March 2018, the USDA announced that it will not regulate genome-edited plants differently if they could have also been developed through traditional breeding. Canada has an altogether different approach with their Plants with Novel Traits regulations. Australia is currently reviewing its Gene Technology Act. This article illustrates the deviation of the European Union's (EU's) approach from the one of most of the other countries studied here. Whereas the EU does not implement a case-by-case approach, this approach is taken by several other jurisdictions. Also, the EU court ruling adheres to a process-based approach while most other countries have a stronger emphasis on the regulation of the resulting product. It is concluded that, unless a functioning identity preservation system for products of directed mutagenesis can be established, the deviation results in a risk of asynchronous approvals and disruptions in international trade.

Dealing With Rejection: An Application of the Exit-Voice Framework to Genome-Edited Food

Genome editing has been hailed as both a revolutionary technology and potential solution to many agriculture-related and sustainability problems. However, owing to the past challenges and controversy generated by widespread rejection of genetic engineering, especially once applied to agriculture and food production, such innovations have also prompted their fair share of concern. Generally speaking, much of the discussion centers on the inadequacy or uncertainty of current regulatory regimes, partly owing to the vastly different approaches in the European Union and United States. Insofar as this focus on regulatory regimes is stimulated by the desire to bridge the divide between proponents and critics of genome editing, it risks losing sight of an essential aim of regulatory action: effectively responding to and fostering trust in consumers and the public. In this article, we thus assign priority to understanding the contours of individual dissatisfaction and its related responses. Toward this end, we apply and extend Hirschman's exit-voice framework to bring together, synthesize, and give much-needed substance to the diverse expressions of dissatisfaction and discontent with novel genome-editing technologies. Through the resulting synthetic framework, we then identify and evaluate which governance approaches can prevent actions seen to be problematic and, moreover, open up the space for a more active public. In this context, we devote specific attention to (i) use of labeling as a means to enable "exit" of consumers from markets and (ii) public deliberation as a possible expression of "voice." Indeed, both options are proposed and utilized in the context of genome editing, e.g., as a way for skeptical consumers to express their viewpoints, seek change in prevailing food systems, and navigate the conflicts and tensions from applying unique sets of values to assess the balance of risks and benefits. So far missing, though, is an evaluation of how well such efforts offer effective means for public expression, which is why we also link this framework to the wider issue of consumer sovereignty. Having done so, we conclude with a brief commentary on the potential and limitations of both options in the existing institutional framework of the EU.

Perspective: regulation of pest and disease control strategies and why (many) economists are concerned

Pests and diseases are a continuous challenge in agriculture production. A wide range of control strategies have been and will continue to be developed. New control strategies are in almost all countries around the world assessed prior to approval for use in farmers' fields. This is rightly so to avoid and even reduce negative effects for human health and the environment. Over the past decades the approval processes have become increasingly politicized resulting in an increase in the direct approval costs and the length in approval time without increasing the safety of the final product. This reduces the development of control strategies and often has negative human health and environmental effects. Possibilities exist for improvements. They include reducing approval costs and approval time by streamlining the approval process and substituting approval requirements by strengthening ex-post liability. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

The Judgment of the CJEU of 25 July 2018 on Mutagenesis: Interpretation and Interim Legislative Proposal

The Judgment of 25 July 2018 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was optimistically awaited by breeders and supporters of agricultural biotechnology, but shortly after the press release advancing the Judgment, hope turned into frustration. Opinions on how to frame the New Breeding Techniques (NBT) in the context of Directive 2001/18/EC were issued before the Judgment, while proposals to assist the EU legislator to amend the regime driven by the Directive have been also provided afterwards by scientists and institutional bodies around the EU. However, they do not seem to have paid so much attention to the Judgment itself. This paper focuses on the Judgment. It finds out that while the impacts of the Judgment on the NBT might have been slightly overvalued, its potential negative effects on techniques of random mutagenesis and varieties breed through them have been generally underestimated if not absolutely overlooked. The analysis also shows that the Judgment does not preempt the possibility to exempt certain applications of some NBT from the scope of Directive 2001/18/EC, and, in fact, ODM, SDN1, and SDN2 might be, under certain conditions, easily exempted from its scope without the need of a deep legislative revolution nor even the amendment of Directive 2001/18/EC. As regards techniques of random mutagenesis and mutant varieties bred by means of those techniques, until action is taken by Member States (if finally taken), no real limitations upon them are to be feared. However, if Member States start to consider the path opened by the CJEU, then their regulation at an EU level should be readily explored in order to avoid further negative effects on plant breeding as well as on the free movement inside the EU of those varieties and the products thereof.

Bottlenecks for genome-edited crops on the road from lab to farm

Gene discovery and government regulation are bottlenecks for the widespread adoption of genome-edited crops. We propose a culture of sharing and integrating crop data to accelerate the discovery and prioritization of candidate genes, as well as a strong engagement with governments and the public to address environmental and health concerns and to achieve appropriate regulatory standards.

New Plant Breeding Techniques Under Food Security Pressure and Lobbying

Different countries have different regulations for the approval and cultivation of crops developed by using new plant breeding technologies (NPBTs) such as gene editing. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between global food security and the level of NPBT regulation assuming a World Nation Official (WNO) proposes advice on global NPBT food policies. We show that a stricter NPBT food regulation reduces food security as measured by food availability, access, and utilization. We also find that political rivalry among interest groups worsens the food security status, given the NPBT food technology is more productive and the regulatory policy is influenced by lobbying. When the WNO aims to improve food security and weighs the NPBT food lobby contribution more than the non-NPBT food lobby's in the lobbying game, the total lobbying contributions will be the same for the WNO, and the NPBT food lobby will be more successful in the political process. The NPBT food lobby, however, under food security loses its advantage in the political competition, and this may result in a strict NPBT food policy. Under food security problems implementing stricter NPBT food regulations results in welfare losses. JEL Code: D04, D43, D72, P16.