EUROPEAN-SEED.COM I EUROPEAN SEED I 9 ES: SO, THIS IS IT THEN – OR ARE THERE ANY POSSIBILITIES TO APPEAL THIS RULING AND GET A DIFFERENT OUTCOME? GvE: There is no appeal procedure to an ECJ preliminary ruling: Roma locuta; causa finita est; the ruling’s interpretation of the Directive on those four questions submitted by the French Court stands. And any similar or related potential cases would be interpreted on the base of the interpretation given in this one. The problem is that science, unfortunately, has been pretty much absent and widely disregarded in this case. That has led to a ruling that may make sense from a purely legal point of view but that doesn’t make sense if we look at the biological facts as well as the technological developments. Why would we consider it necessary to regulate the same product by two different sets of rules? And how do we practically enforce rules that will con- sistently be challenged; not by man but by nature itself. It seems that more and more people start to see that it is probably not the ruling itself that is the problem but what it is based on: scientifi- cally outdated concepts determining legal rules that today prove to be too narrow to be able to keep pace with a changing reality. ES: WILL THE ECJ’S RULING NOW STIFLE PLANT BREEDING INNOVATION IN EUROPE? GvE: The commercial release of any new variety obtained by advanced mutagenesis breeding methods now requires the reg- ular EU GMO risk assessment clearance which constructs an immense financial hurdle that effectively rules out applications for any smaller market or species. But even for maize or oilseed rape, today, no applications for cultivation of GMOs are pending in the EU. Not only is the authorisation procedure notoriously cumbersome and slow; it also is completely politicised with Member States now having the right to ban the cultivation of GMOs on their own territory even following an EU level approval. 19 out of the current 28 (in the future 27) Member States have introduced such blanket cultivation bans in their national laws. Before this background, a wider introduction of new varieties developed with latest breeding methods is both financially as well as practically impossible. And we should not forget the impact on further research! Field trials with plants classified as GMOs have basically ceased to exist in Europe. We must now expect that the same will be happening to research projects involving advanced mutagen- esis breeding. With that, also public research into PBI (Plant Breeding Innovation) applications will largely come to an end as crucial industry co-funding will dry out and public-private partnerships lack the necessary economic basis. This will have dramatic consequences for product development for Europe. Moreover, and that is maybe even worse for our long-term future, I would imagine that young people considering a career in plant science will look elsewhere for their educational options and, later on, their professional career. ES: SO, YOU EXPECT EUROPE TO LAG BEHIND OTHER REGIONS? GvE: Yes. Europe will start to lag behind. The only question is at what point in time this will become fully evident. Companies will quite quickly concentrate PBI related R&I activities outside of Europe. It is likely that this will go hand-in-hand with a re-focussing of overall Many expected the European Court of Justice to follow the opinion of its Advocate General Bobeck who had taken a very different approach in his interpretation of the relevant EU Directive Garlich v. Essen, Secretary General of the European Seed Association