How should we regulate products of new breeding techniques? Opinion of surveyed experts in plant biotechnology

• Published in: Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Netherlands), 2020-06, Vol.26, p.e00460-e00460, Article e00460
• Main Authors: Lassoued, Rim, Macall, Diego Maximiliano, Smyth, Stuart J., Phillips, Peter W.B., Hesseln, Hayley
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: CJEU ruling; Food security; Genome editing; Innovation; Trade; Worldviews
• ISSN: 2215-017X; 2215-017X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2020.e00460

•Product-based models stand as potential appropriate frameworks to regulate outcomes of genome editing.•Experts oppose the 2018’s CJEU judgment of directed mutagenesis as it is politically driven.•Expertise and region influence worldviews of trade but not of agricultural innovation.•Experts’ worldviews did not influence how new breeding techniques should be regulated. The adoption of genome editing depends among others, on a clear and navigable regulatory framework that renders consistent decisions. Some countries like the United States decided to deregulate specific transgene-free genome edited products that could be created through traditional breeding and are not considered to be plant pests, while others are still challenged to fit emerging technologies in their regulatory system. Here we poll international experts in plant biotechnology on what approach should nations agree upon to accommodate current and future new breeding technologies and derived products. A key finding is product-based models or dual-product/process systems are viewed as potential appropriate frameworks to regulate outcomes of genome editing. As regulation of novel products of biotechnology is expected to impact research and trade, we test the impact of experts’ worldviews on these issues. Results show that region influences worldviews of trade but not of agricultural innovation. In contrast, there was no effect of experts’ worldviews on how products of novel biotechnologies should be regulated.