Removing politics from innovations that improve food security.

Genetically modified (GM) organisms and crops have been a feature of food production for over 30 years. Despite extensive science-based risk assessment, the public and many politicians remain concerned with the genetic manipulation of crops, particularly food crops. Many governments have addressed public concern through biosafety legislation and regulatory frameworks that identify and regulate risks to ensure human health and environmental safety. These domestic regulatory frameworks align to international scientific risk assessment methodologies on a case-by-case basis. Regulatory agencies in 70 countries around the world have conducted in excess of 4400 risk assessments, all reaching the same conclusion: GM crops and foods that have been assessed provide no greater risk to human health or the environment than non-GM crops and foods. Yet, while the science regarding the safety of GM crops and food appears conclusive and societal benefits have been globally demonstrated, the use of innovative products have only contributed minimal improvements to global food security. Regrettably, politically-motivated regulatory barriers are currently being implemented with the next genomic innovation, genome editing, the implications of which are also discussed in this article. A decade of reduced global food insecurity was witnessed from 2005 to 2015, but regrettably, the figure has subsequently risen. Why is this the case? Reasons have been attributed to climate variability, biotic and abiotic stresses, lack of access to innovative technologies and political interference in decision making processes. This commentary highlights how political interference in the regulatory approval process of GM crops is adversely affecting the adoption of innovative, yield enhancing crop varieties, thereby limiting food security opportunities in food insecure economies.

Regulatory approaches for genome edited agricultural plants in select countries and jurisdictions around the world.

Genome editing in agriculture and food is leading to new, improved crops and other products. Depending on the regulatory approach taken in each country or region, commercialization of these crops and products may or may not require approval from the respective regulatory authorities. This paper describes the regulatory landscape governing genome edited agriculture and food products in a selection of countries and regions.

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.

Sustainability Council of New Zealand Trust v. The Environmental Protection Authority: Gene editing technologies and the law.

In May 2014, a New Zealand court rendered the first judicial opinion in the world about the legal classification of gene-editing techniques. The court ruled that ZFN-1 and TALEs are techniques of genetic modification and thus within the New Zealand statute and regulations governing genetically modified organisms. This article explains the facts of this legal matter, the reasoning of the court, and provides commentary about the implications of this decision for New Zealand and other jurisdictions around the world.

Trade and commerce in improved crops and food: an essay on food security.

Agricultural trade between nations is a significant proportion of total international trade. Agricultural trade in transgenic crops faces extra complications due to the existence of domestic and international regimes that focus specifically on agricultural biotechnology. These specialized regimes create legal and commercial challenges for trade in transgenic crops that have significant implications for the food security of the nations of the world. By food security, one should understand not just the available supply of food, but also the quality of the food and the environmental impact of agricultural production systems. These specialized regimes for transgenic crops can either encourage or hinder the adoption of agricultural biotechnology as a sustainable intensive agriculture. Sustainable intensive agriculture offers hope for agronomic improvements for agricultural production, socio-economic betterment for farmers and environmental benefits for societies. Sustainable intensive agriculture offers particular hope for the poorest farmers of the world because agricultural biotechnology is a technology in the seed.