b'It is, of course, a significant trait inA unilateral decision by France to do so variety development. Many, many cropscould have significant impact also on inter-grown today possess some degree ofnational trade as legal obligations regard-herbicide tolerance. Without it, chemicaling transboundary movement, traceability herbicide crop protection could result inand labelling, post-market monitoring etc. total crop failure. These crops generallyThere is no technical, biological,would all need to be taken into account.have resulted from a wide range of breed-ing methods, depending mainly on thescientific, or legal justification for Next Steps and Way Forwardbiology of the species and how to bestthis specific focus on herbicideMember States and EU Commission integrate the trait. So, from a scientificoriginally had until 7 August (end of point of view, the link between herbi- tolerant oilseed rape varieties. the so-called standstill period during cide tolerance, a specific plant breedingwhich France cannot adopt and imple-method, and the regulatory question ofment the decree) to issue comments or what actually constitutes a GMO under EUa so-called detailed opinions on the legislation shouldnt really be made. Butdraft. The legal basis for any objection it is exactly what the French draft decreegenerally is an impact of the Decree on establishes. As there are no biological differencesthe EU single market. Also, other EU and between products resulting from differ- non-EU stakeholders as well as third The European Seed Sectors View ent forms of (in vitro) mutagenesis, thecountry governments can provide com-Euroseeds and its member companieswider consequences of the draft cannotments. Meanwhile, not only Finland and and associations fundamentally object tobe complied with, hence it risks beingAustria submitted their concerns via the the French interpretation of EU legislationunenforceable. This would cause greatTRIS-System, but the Czech Republic (Directive 2001/18 and seed laws) and thelegal uncertainty for market operators ineven issued a detailed opinion. While its European Court of Justice and ConseilEurope and worldwide. detailed content is not public at this point, dEtat rulings because of a number ofThe French draft decree would createthis opinion has already led to a prolonga-fundamental reasons. a distortion of the EU single market andtion of the standstill period to November. The proposed definition of in vitroestablish barriers to the EU seed trade. AIn addition, a wide range of institutions random mutagenesis is technically flawed.national narrowing of the exemption fromand stakeholders have made use of It is not based on science. This is acknowl- the GMO Directive shakes up the entirethe possibility to comment through the edged even by Frances own High CouncilEU internal market for seeds as well asTRIS procedure and asked for France to for Biotechnology which is unable toresulting products. It is incomprehensi- withdraw the draft decree. It still remains establish differences between the prod- ble how Member States are supposed toto be seen how specifically the European ucts resulting from different forms of (indefend a common market for seed on theCommission will react to defend the suc-vitro) mutagenesis, a finding also stressedone hand but have fundamentally differ- cessful common market for seed.by the European Academy of Scienceent legal interpretations of what breedingClearly, there is a link between this and many other scientific publications.techniques and resulting products are: adraft decree and the on-going European The impact of defining plants resultingregulated GMO, an exempted GMO, or noCommission study on the development from in vitro random mutagenesis asGMO at all. Common rules, mutual rec- of latest breeding methods commis-non-exempted GMOs is therefore muchognition and consequent free movementsioned by the Council in November 2019 broader as it practically affects all cropsand competition cannot be sustained ifand expected for April 2021. Still, it didnt resulting directly or indirectly (e.g. throughdefinitions and interpretations of scope ofneed this draft decree nor is there a need use of respective varieties under thelegislation deteriorate. to wait for the outcome of the study to breeders exemption in breeding pro- Finally, the French proposal risksconclude that the current EU legislation grammes by other companies) from thisto create technical barriers to tradeurgently needs amending to (re-)establish technique. under the World Trade Organizationsclarity as regards definitions and conse-It is also arbitrary and, as a con- (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)quent scope and exemptions, based on sequence, legally flawed, to restrictAgreement (if not already a problemsound science rather than day-to-day the consequent de-listing of varietiesunder the SPS Agreement). No country innational policy agendas, and providing a obtained by such breeding methods tothe world classifies and regulates productssolid base for plant breeding innovation only those that show a specific trait, i.e.resulting from random mutagenesis (inand international trade of resulting prod-herbicide tolerance. vitro or otherwise) as regulated GMOs.ucts for the future.SW76/ SEEDWORLD.COMDECEMBER 2020'