b'POLICY DEVELOPMENTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD (09/2019)Canada: ProductRussia: decree for R&D program based approach;clarifying that conventional-ongoing discussionsEurope: ECJ decisionlike genome editing products to improve system calls all mutagenesisare not regulated as GMOGMO and subject to EU GMO regulationUS: Proposednew USDA policy excludes certainChina: China unofficial techniques; ExecutiveGMO-lite proposalOrder on Modernizing Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology Japan: excluding certain Israel: Guidance thatedited products (Korea specific techniques arelikely to follow)Argentina, Chile, Brazil,outside GMO scopeParaguay Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala: Australia: Revised gene Case-by-case approach,tech regulation excludeNZ: High Court excluding certain editedsome gene editingdecision that a few products (El Salvador likelyapplications specific techniques to follow) are GMOPOSITIVE DECISIONNO FORMAL DECISIONRESTRICTIVE DECISIONFigure 1: Global overview on regulatory approaches implemented or discussed in different countries (Status September 2019). In green: countries that exempt certain plants resulting from targeted mutagenesis breeding from their biotech regulations; in yellow: countries that started discussions, but did not take decisions yet on their policy approaches for plants resulting from new breeding methods; red: countries in which court rulings interpreted established GMO regulations in way that these also apply to all plants resulting from targeted mutagenesis breeding methods, even if these plants are indistinguishable from conventionally bred plants.Finlandis,ascurrentCouncilbreeding techniques taking into accounttheir biotech regulations (for more infor-Presidency, following up on the Dutchthe existing legal framework for GMOsmation: see Jorasch, 2019 ai).proposal that was presented in theprovided by Directive 2001/18/EC andDiffering regulatory requirements AgriFish Council in May 2019 to call uponthe Court of Justices judgment in Casewill limit the capacity of the industry to the incoming new Commission to includeC-528/16. The study should be accompa- innovate. It will also reduce the availabil-addressing the adequacy of the Europeannied by a proposal, if appropriate in viewity of genetic resources for breeding and legislative framework for GMOsand asof the outcomes of the study, or otherwisehave a negative effect on research collab-appropriate other related legal and policyto inform the Council on other measuresorations as well as hinder the movement instrumentsin its program of work.required as a follow-up to the study. of seed globally. In addition, commodity One major driver for this proposal wastrade disruption will occur, and agricul-the above mentioned JRC/ENGL reportCAN EUROPE AFFORD TO BEtural development and food security will questioning the ability of member statesLEFT BEHIND? be impeded. Enforcement issues, like to enforce the current regulation withCurrently, there is a trend towards athe ones mentioned above are likely to regard to products that cannot be distin- global harmonization of regulatoryincrease because seeds and commod-guished as described above. The Dutchoversight when it comes to the prod- ities developed with the aid of some of proposal was supported by a number ofucts of new breeding methods includingthe latest plant breeding methods may member states. After the Council meet- genome editing. Most countries whichbe indistinguishable from those derived ing EU Farm Commissioner Phil Hoganalready implemented or discussed newfrom traditional plant breeding methods said his colleague Vytenis Andriukaitisor updated policies follow the princi- or naturally occurring genetic variation. (responsible for Health & Food Safety)ple approach that products including aA harmonized scope of regulatory continues to get advice on the legal advicenovel combination of genetic materialoversight would accommodate current sci-on mutagenesis techniques & was askingas laid out in the LMO-definition of theentific progress and help addressing signif-national capitals for certain data toCartagena Protocol will be in the scopeicant global challenges like climate change help the Commission to come up with aof their biotech regulations. This includesand food security in a timely manner. In robust response.several South American countries likeorder to achieve the new Commissions The Finnish Council presidencyArgentina, Colombia, Brazil, Chile,goals Europe should welcome innovation recently put forward a follow up-proposalHonduras, Guatemala and Japan. Also,and not fall behind the rest of the world in to ask the Commission to conduct a studythe US, Australia and Russia excludeterms of adopting innovation and the broad addressing the legal situation of new plantcertain products of genome editing fromsocietal benefits brings (Jorasch 2019 bii). [I] Jorasch, P. (2019a) in press: Will the EU stay out of step with science and the rest of the world on plant breeding innovation?DOI: 10.1007/s00299-019-02482-2[II] Jorasch, P. (2919b) The global need for plant breeding innovation; Transgenic Research Vol. 28, (2), pp 8186https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-019-00138-1 EUROPEAN-SEED.COMIEUROPEAN SEED I 19'