In the course of the GMO battles these important facts are often forgotten.Дў. The case of Ireland and Scotland is even more curious since one proposed GM-potato that they refuse to cultivate is resistant to Phytophthora infestans - the cause of the Irish and Scottish potato famines (18) that killed millions and caused mass migrations Fraser E.D.G. The case of the UK is curious since the climate is not propitious for the cultivation of GM crops with the exception of potatoes, wheat and beets none of which are authorized for cultivation in the EU. In addition, 2 member states have used the вЂњopt-outвЂќ clause for part of their territory: Belgium вЂ“ for the Region of Wallonia вЂ“ and the UK, for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not England. These are Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia. To date, 17 member states have used the вЂњopt-outвЂќ clause as regards cultivation of the GM crops for their whole territory. However, the latest major amendment of the EU regulation (EU-Directive 2015вЂ“412 in European Union Law) permits individual member countries to opt-out of GM cultivations for reasons not concerned with food safety. On top of these decades-old GMO regulations, 3 new developments are particularly troubling: In previous times, EU Directive 2001/18/ EC 1, permitted cultivation of authorized GMO crops anywhere in the EU. Small amounts are also cultivated in Portugal, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Slovakia.ДЎ. Spain is an exception and cultivates MON810 (the only GM-crop authorized for EU cultivation). The EU has the one of the most severe sets GMO regulations in the world and as a consequence of a hostile legal and political climate, almost no significant quantities GM crops are cultivated in Europe. The EU is at a turning point where the wrong decision could destroy European agricultural competitively for decades to come. In this review, we make suggestions as to how these new gene edited crops may be regulated. The EU currently has no regulations to cover these new techniques. Thus they cannot simply be lumped together with GMOs (as many anti-GMO NGOs would prefer). They are not GMO based techniques (any more than mutagenesis is a GMO technique), since in many cases no new DNA is introduced. These techniques are basically mutagenesis techniques that can generate genomic diversity and have vast potential for crop improvement. Secondly, over the last few years new genomic editing techniques (sometimes called New Breeding Techniques) have evolved. We advise that the EC re-writes it outdated regulations and moves toward such a product based approach. Canada has a вЂњproduct basedвЂќ approach and determines the safety of each new crop variety independently of the process used to obtain it. However current scientific evidence shows a blending of classical crops and their GMO counterparts with no clear demarcation line between them. Thus, the EU regulations are вЂњprocess basedвЂќ regulations that discriminate against GMOs simply because they are GMOs. A major EU regulatory preconception is that GM crops are basically different from their parent crops. Indeed, they defy scientific, economic, and even common, sense. Scientific understanding of GMOs has changed and these regulations are now, not only unfit for their original purpose, but, the purpose itself is now no longer scientifically valid. Firstly, the present GMO regulations stem from the early days of recombinant DNA and are not adapted to current scientific understanding on this subject. Our analysis concerns present GMO regulations as well as suggestions for possible new regulations for genome editing and New Breeding Techniques (for which no regulations presently exist). In this review, current EU GMO regulations are subjected to a point-by point analysis to determine their suitability for agriculture in modern Europe.

Jay-z reasonable doubt german import