Регулювання в Європейському Союзі сортів рослин, що отримані з використанням  нових технологій селекції

Б. В. Сорочинський

doi:10.21498/2518-1017.15.1.2019.162480

Authors

Б. В. Сорочинський Institute of Food Biotechnology and Genomics, NAS of Ukraine, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6167-4071

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21498/2518-1017.15.1.2019.162480

Keywords:

genome editing, genetically modified organisms, mutagenesis, substantial equivalence, determination methods, regulation

Abstract

Purpose. Analyze the legal regulation of plants obtained using new plant breeding technologies in the European Union.

Results. General information on New Plant Breeding Technologies (genome editing) is given. In contrast to the traditional mutagenesis NPBTs provide an opportunity to obtain the precise and target genome modification such as replacement, insertion or deletion of the single nucleotide at the specific loci or even site-specific insertion of the whole gene. Thanks to new breeding technologies plants resistant to pathogens, herbicides and abiotic stress factors with increased yields and improved nutritional properties have already been developed. In many countries, plants developed with genome editing are not subject to special regulation and equated to those obtained by traditional mutagenesis. At the same time, according to the decision of the European Court of 25 July 2018, organisms obtained as a result of targeted mutagenesis are subject to streamlining acts which regulate work with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In this regard, the regulatory framework of the European Union concerning traditional GMOs was analyzed in terms of risk assessment and obtaining a permit for commercial use. It was shown that some provisions of the EU legislation, for example, the assignment of mutagenesis under the influence of ionizing radiation to safe methods of selection and analysis of substantial equivalence via simple comparison of GMOs and their non-GM counterparts do not fully reflect recent scientific advances. The problem of the lack of adequate methods for detecting new organisms obtained using genome editing tools is also discussed.

Conclusions. The current regulatory framework formed in the European Union in relation to the handling of GMOs, and which, according to a court decision, should also be applied in case of regulation of genome edited plants does not meet the requirements of the present and needs changes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Б. В. Сорочинський, Institute of Food Biotechnology and Genomics, NAS of Ukraine

Borys Sorochynskyi

References

Brazelton, V. A., Zarecor, S., Wright, D. A., Wang, Y., Liu, J., Chen, K., Yang, B., & Lawrence-Dill, C. J. (2015). A quick guide to CRISPR sgRNA design tools. GM Crops Food, 6(4), 266–276. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2015.1137690

Kamburova, V., Nikitina, E., Shermatov, Sh., Buriev, Z. T., Kumpatla, S. P., Emani, Ch., & Abdurakhmonov, I. Y. (2017). Genome Editing in Plants: An Overview of Tools and Applications. Int. J. Agron., 2017, 7315351. doi: 10.1155/2017/7315351

Sovová, T., Kerins, G., Demnerová, K., & Ovesná, J. (2017). Genome Editing with Engineered Nucleases in Economically Important Animals and Plants: State of the Art in the Research Pipeline. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol., 21, 41–62. doi: 10.21775/cimb.021.041

Bruce, A. (2017). Genome edited animals: Learning from GM crops? Transgenic Res., 26(3), 385–398. doi: 10.1007/s11248-017-0017-2

Zhou, J., Li, D., Wang, G., Wang, F., Kunjal, M., Joldersma, D., & Liu, Z. (2019). Application and future perspective of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in fruit crops. J. Integr. Plant Biol. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12793.2019. [Epub ahead of print]

Zhang, Y., Massel, K., Godwin, I., & Gao, C. (2018). Applications and potential of genome editing in crop improvement. Genome Biol., 19(1), 210. doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1586-y

Abdelrahman, M., Al-Sadi, A. M., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Burritte, D. J., & Tran, L. S. P. (2018). Genome editing using CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis: An opportunity for yield improvements of crop plants grown under environmental stresses. Plant Physiol. Biochem., 131, 31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.03.012

Sedeek, Kh. E. M., Mahas, A., & Mahfouz, M. (2019). Plant Genome Engineering for Targeted Improvement of Crop Traits. Front. Plant Sci., 10, 114. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00114

Eriksson, D., Kershen, D., Nepomuceno, A., Pogson, B. J., Prieto, H., Purnhagen, K., Smyth, S., … Whelan, A. (2018). A comparison of the EU regulatory approach to directed mutagenesis with that of other jurisdictions, consequences for international trade and potential steps forward. New Phytol. doi: 10.1111/nph.15627. [Epub ahead of print]

United States Department of Agriculture. (2018). Secretary Perdue Issues USDA Statement on Plant Breeding Innovation: press release no. 0070.18. (March 28, 2018). Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation

Whelan, A., & Lema, M. (2015). Regulatory framework for gene editing and other new breeding techniques (NBTs) in Argentina. GM Crops Food, 6(4), 253–265. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2015.1114698

Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (2013). DD 2013-100: Determination of the Safety of Cibus Canada Inc.’s Canola (Brassica napus L.) Event 5715. Retrieved from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/approved-under-review/decision-documents/dd-2013-100/eng/1427383332253/1427383674669

McHughen, A. (2016). A critical assessment of regulatory triggers for products of biotechnology: Product vs. process. GM Crops Food, 7(3–4), 125–158. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2016.1228516

Ishii, T., & Araki, M. (2017). A future scenario of the global regulatory landscape regarding genome-edited crops. GM Crops Food, 8(1), 44–56. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2016.1261787

Jones, H. D. (2017). Future of breeding by genome editing is in the hands of regulators. GM Crops Food, 6(4), 223–232. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2015.1134405

Davisona, J., & Ammann, K. (2017). New GMO regulations for old: Determining a new future for EU crop biotechnology. GM Crops Food, 8(1), 13–34. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1289305

Globus, R., & Qimron, U. (2018). A technological and regulatory outlook on CRISPR crop editing. J. Cell Biochem., 119(2), 1291–1298. doi: 10.1002/jcb.26303

Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber), 25 July 2018 in Case C-528/16. Retrieved from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130dcd5adc6577ba74dc9b5acf2530b87e485.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pb3yRe0?text=&docid=204387&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first∂=1&cid=72898

Zimny, T., Sowa, S., Tyczewska, A., & Twardowski, T. (2019). Certain new plant breeding techniques and their marketability in the context of EU GMO legislation – recent developments. New Biotechnol., 51, 49–56. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2019.02.003

Purnhagen, K. P., & Wesseler, J. H. H. (2019). Maximum vs. Minimum Harmonization: What to expect from the institutional and legal battles in the EU on Gene editing technologies? Pest Manag. Sci. doi: 10.1002/ps.5367. [Epub ahead of print]

Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (2001). Official Journal of the European Communities, L 106, 1–38. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:303dd4fa-07a8-4d20-86a8-0baaf0518d22.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

Commission Directive (EU) 2018/350 of 8 March 2018 amending Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (2018). Official Journal of the European Union, L 67, 30–45. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L0350&from=en

Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (2003). Official Journal of the European Union, L 268, 1–23. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003R1829&from=en

Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (2002). Official Journal of the European Communities, L 193, 1–11. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0053&from=EN

Custers, R., Casacuberta, J. M., Eriksson, D., Sági, L., & Schiemann, J. (2019). Genetic Alterations That Do or Do Not Occur Naturally; Consequences for Genome Edited Organisms in the Context of Regulatory Oversight. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 6, 213. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00213

Bolon, Y.-T., Stec, A., Michno, J.-M., Roessler, J., Bhaskar, P. B., Ries, L., … Stupar, R. M. (2014). Genome resilience and prevalence of segmental duplications following fast neutron irradiation of soybean. Genetics, 198(3), 967–981. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.170340

Paoletti, C., Favilla, S., Leo, A., Neri, F. M., Broll, H., & Fernandez, A. (2018). Variability of Crops’ Compositional Characteristics: What Do Experimental Data Show? J. Agric. Food Chem., 66(36), 9507–9515. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b01871

Ricroch, A., Bergé, J., & Kuntz, M. (2011). Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiol., 155(4), 1752–1761. doi: 10.1104/pp.111.173609

Coll, A., Nadal, A., Palaudelmás, M., Messeguer, J, Melé, E., Puigdomènech, P., & Pla, M. (2008). Lack of repeatable differential expression patterns between MON810 and comparable commercial varieties of maize. Plant Mol. Biol., 68(1–2), 105–117. doi: 10.1007/s11103-008-9355-z

Coll, A., Nadal, A., Collado, R., Capellades, G., Messeguer, J., Melé, E., Palaudelmás, M., & Pla, M. (2009). Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines. Transgenic Res., 18(5), 801–808. doi: 10.1007/s11248-009-9266-z

Coll, A., Nadal, A., Collado, R., Capellades, G., Kubista, M., Messeguer, J., & Pla, M. (2010). Natural variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties subjected to two N-fertilization farming practices. Plant Mol. Biol., 73(3), 349–362. doi: 1007/s11103-010-9624-5

Venkatesh, T., Cook, K., Liu, B., Perez, T., Willse, A., Tichich, R., Feng, P., & Harrigan, G. G. (2015). Compositional differences between near-isogenic GM and conventional maize hybrids are associated with backcrossing practices in conventional breeding. Plant Biotechn. J., 13(2), 200–210. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12248

Harrigan, G., Lundry, D., Drury, S., Berman, K., Riordan, S. G., Nemeth, M. A., Ridley, W. P., & Glenn, K. C. (2010). Natural variation in crop composition and the impact of transgenesis. Nat. Biotechnol., 28(5), 402–404. doi: 10.1038/nbt0510-402

Duensing, N., Sprink, T., Parrott, W. A., Fedorova, M., Lema, M. A., Wolt, J. D., & Bartsch, D. (2018). Novel Features and Considerations for ERA and Regulation of Crops Produced by Genome Editing. Front. Bioengin. Biotechnol., 6, 79. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00079

European Network of GMO Laboratories. (2019). Detection of food and feed obtained by new plant mutagenesis techniques: Report endorsed by the ENGL Steering Committee. Retrieved from http://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/JRC116289-GE-report-ENGL.pdf

Halford, N. G. (2019). Legislation governing genetically modified and genome-edited crops in Europe: the need for change. J. Sci. Food Agric., 99(1), 8–12. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9227