Premium
Hold your pipettes: The European Court of Justice's findings in Confédération Paysanne & Others stirs GMOtions
Author(s) -
Garnett Kathleen
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
review of european, comparative and international environmental law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.37
H-Index - 18
eISSN - 2050-0394
pISSN - 2050-0386
DOI - 10.1111/reel.12291
Subject(s) - directive , european union , economic justice , european court of justice , political science , legislation , surprise , context (archaeology) , law , european commission , law and economics , european union law , sociology , biology , business , international trade , paleontology , communication , computer science , programming language
In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its final ruling on the much anticipated Confédération Paysanne & Others case on the regulation of mutagenic plants in the European Union (EU). Advocate General Bobek had opined that mutagenic techniques for the development of novel plant varieties should be exempted from the stringent provisions set out in the EU genetically modified organisms (GMO) Directive. It came as somewhat of a surprise, therefore, when the Court of Justice, in its final ruling, took a diametrically opposite point of view to that of the Advocate General, and concluded that novel mutagenic techniques must be subject to the provisions set out in the EU's various regulations relating to GMOs. The scientific community are now calling for the European Commission to consider new legislation to take account of novel plant breeding techniques. This case note sets out how the CJEU reached its conclusions, explains why the GMO Directive is not anti‐science and considers the important role that defining ‘natural’ within a legal context will play in the forthcoming debate on science, innovation and novel plant breeding techniques.