Coexistence field trials between MON810 and conventional maize in Mallorca as a basis for a regional regulatory proposal based on scientific evidence in the times of genome editing.

This paper reports the first coexistence field trials between transgenic and conventional maize carried out under Mediterranean island conditions. Their purpose was to assess the local validity of pollen barriers and sowing delays as coexistence strategies as a basis for a regional regulation on the subject. Two field trials were performed in two agricultural states of Alcudia and Palma, in Mallorca (Spain). In the first one, two adjacent plots were synchronously sown with conventional and transgenic maize, respectively. In the second trial, the previous design was replicated, and two additional plots sown with GM maize were added, paired with their respective conventional recipient plots sown 2 and 4 weeks later. All conventional plots were located downwind from their respective GM plots. Of the two conventional plots in sowing synchrony, only one of them required a 2.25 m pollen barrier to meet the 0.9% labeling threshold. A 4-week sowing delay between GM and non-GM plots proved to be enough to keep the GM content of the recipient plots below the legal threshold. However, with a 2-week sowing delay additional coexistence measures such as pollen barriers might be needed, as suggested in the literature. Results are consistent with previous research conducted in the northeast of Spain, thus validating in the island's agroclimatic conditions a model successfully tested in that peninsular region which allows to accurately estimate the need and width of pollen barriers. The results presented here could perhaps be extrapolated to other islands, coastal areas, and regions with stable prevailing winds during the maize flowering season.

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.