Hold your pipettes: The European Court of Justice's findings in Confédération Paysanne & Others stirs GMOtions
| Date | 01 November 2019 |
| Published date | 01 November 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12291 |
| Author | Kathleen Garnett |
RECIEL. 2019;28:349–355.
|
349
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel
1 | INTRODUCTION
In September 2016, St efan Jansson, P rofessor in Plant C ell and
Molecular Biol ogy at Umeå Universi ty in Sweden, sat down to a m eal
of cabbage, whic h he had grown successfully at the b ack of his gar‐
den, using convent ional cottage‐garden h usbandry. Although grow n
conventionally, his was n o ordinary cabbage. Jan sson claimed it was
a historic firs t – to the best of his knowledge, no on e else had ever
eaten a CRISPR Cas‐9 c abbage. He had obtaine d the mutagenic cab‐
bage seed from a sci entist abroad – w ho preferred to s tay anony‐
mous. Two years on, Profes sor Jansson, al ong with many of his
colleagues in t he scientific co mmunity, was hugely d isappointed
with the Cour t of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU ) ruling on
mutagenic pla nts handed dow n on 25 July 2018.1 Writing in t he
journal Nature, Jansson not ed ‘I took a photo yes terday, and I took
another after t he ruling. It’s still t he same plant. Yesterday it wa sn’t a
GMO [genetic ally modified organism], a nd now it’s a GMO. I’m a bit
curious what I have to do . Do I have to remove it?’2
The CJEU’s ruli ng in Confédération Paysanne & Others,3 in applica‐
tion of the relevant European Union (EU) legislation,4 has led to much
derision. The d ecision has been c alled ‘catast rophic’5 and ‘absurd’,6
particularly within the scientific community, which has generally
viewed the judgm ent as backwards an d anti‐science. Such v iews, how‐
ever, fail to underst and the core interpretation of D irective 2001/18
1 CaseC‐528/16,Confédération Paysanne & Others (Confédération), ECLI:EU:C:2018:5 83
2018.
2 ECallaway,‘CRI SPRPlantsno wSubjecttoToughG MLawsinEurop eanUnion’(20 18)
560 Nature 16.
3 Confédération (n 1).
4 NdeSadelee r,‘NationalCon trolofGMOCul tivationint heEU’(2018)Nor dic
Environmen tal Law Journa l 27.
5 MRidley(25Jul y2018)
2304 >.
6 ‘TheObse rverViewonE urope’sBanonG eneEditingC rops’(TheO bserver,29Jul y2018).
DOI: 10 .1111/reel .12291
CASE N OTE
Hold your pipettes: The European Court of Justice’s findings in
Confédération Paysanne & Others stirs GMOtions
Kathleen Garnett
Correspondence
Kathleen Garnett
Email: kathleen.garnett@wur.nl
In July 2018, the Cour t of Justice of the Europea n Union (CJEU) gave its f inal ruling
on the much anticipate d Confédération Paysanne & Othe rs case on the regula tion of
mutagenic plant s in the European Union (EU). A dvocate General B obek had opined
that mutagenic tech niques for the development of novel plant varie ties should be ex‐
empted from the str ingent provisions set out in the EU genetic ally modified organisms
(GMO) Directive. It c ame as somewhat of a surpr ise, therefore, whe n the Court of
Justice, in its fi nal ruling, took a diam etrically oppo site point of view to that of the
Advocate Genera l, and concluded that novel mutage nic techniques must be subjec t to
the provisions set out in t he EU’s various regulations relating to GMOs . The scientific
community are now c alling for the Europea n Commission to consider ne w legislation
to take account of novel plant bree ding techniques. T his case note sets ou t how the
CJEU reached it s conclusions, explains why the GM O Directive is not anti‐science and
considers the impo rtant role that d efining ‘natural’ wit hin a legal context wil l play in
the forthcomin g debate on science, innovation and novel plant b reeding techniques.
This is an open ac cess article und er the terms of the Crea t ive Commo ns Attri bution‐Non Co mmerc ial‐NoDerivs Li cense, which permi ts use and distrib ution in
any medium, pr ovided the origina l work is properly cit ed, the use is non‐com mercial and no modi fications or adap tations are made.
© 2019 The Authors . Review of European, Co mparative & Internati onal Environmenta l Law Published by Jo hn Wiley & Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial