The comparatively low adoption rate of GMO products in the European Union (EU) market seems to be connected with the strictness of authorization regulations and inefficiency of the authorization process itself. These problems will apply to any product deemed to be a GMO that could potentially be marketable in the EU. Since modern methods of plant breeding involving oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODMs) or site-directed nucleases (SDNs), including Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), are becoming ever more popular, it is crucial to establish whether the products of such new breeding techniques (NBTs), in particular those which involve precise methods of mutagenesis, are exempted from the EU legislation on GMOs or not. Legal uncertainty as to their status may result in reluctance to invest in such methods and develop them further. Here, developments are presented in the legal classification of certain NBTs products in the context of recent decisions and jurisprudence. The socioeconomic aspects of GMO adoption in both global and European contexts are discussed. The legal and practical landscape of GMO regulation in the EU is presented and how it may pose an obstacle to investment and the development of new products. The latest jurisprudence (e.g., Case C-528/16) [1] on the interpretation of the legal concept of GMOs and the scope of the legislation are analyzed, with the conclusion that the strict regulations will probably also apply to products of the NBTs involving precise methods of mutagenesis. This in turn will probably result in the restriction of their application in the development of new plant varieties in the EU.
The article discusses amendment options (no significant change, lowering of administrative burdens or exemption of certain products from the legislation) for the European Union (EU) authorization procedures of New Genomic Techniques’ (NGT) products and their consequences for the sector and research institutions, particularly in the context of internal functioning, placing products on the market and international trade. A reform of the EU regulatory system requires a change in the procedures for the authorization of NGT products, otherwise EU researchers and investors may still be at a competitive disadvantage (as compared to Argentina, Brazil, Canada, United States or the United Kingdom) due to the inefficiency of the current system and the committee procedure for authorization. New legislation, currently being adopted in the United Kingdom is also presented for comparison.