The EU includes gene editing in the gm regulatory framework.

"Many European counterparts were shocked and dismayed to learn of the European Court of Justice's decision that they had suffered from the political abduction of GM and lost the competitiveness of agricultural science and technology, and that it would be a sad time for the entire european scientific community to suffer further setbacks in technological innovation in the future due to faulty genomic editing management."
" Huang Dazhao, a researcher at the Institute of Biotechnology of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, on the 29th.
the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on the 25th that gene mutagenic technology, including genome editing, should be considered genetically modified technology and should in principle be subject to eu gMO laws.
and dramatising, 27, Europe and the United States completed the signing of a zero-tariff free trade agreement, the European Union said it will import more U.S. genetically modified soybeans.
, the EU imports large quantities of GM soybeans and gm agricultural products from the United States while restricting its own RESEARCH and development of GM and genome editing technologies and crop cultivation.
genome editing is not the same as genetically modified" genome editing, using a newly established gene modification technique to remove or mutate the target sites of the species' genome to obtain the desired mutation of organisms, for example, to remove peanut-induced allergy genes.
genome editing can also be used in the development of genetically modified crops, where the operation requires the addition of external genes.
genome editing is not the same as genetically modified, and genome editing involves a broader range of results.
," said Jiang Wei, a senior engineer at the Center for Biological Research at the Institute of Genetics and Development of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Huang Dazhao said that genome editing is another major technological breakthrough in bioengineering after genetic modification.
compared with traditional hybrid breeding and genetically modified breeding, genome editing mutagenic breeding is more accurate, and can be inserted without external gene, like the natural mutation of the organism itself, thus further reducing the risk that genetically modified random integration may arise, making biological genetic operation more safe and controllable.
regulation does not follow scientific principles" the EU's so-called precautionary principle of biotechnology (also translated as the precautionary principle) of the regulatory philosophy, not only regulating products, but also the process of over-questioning, is highly subjective, the degree and breadth of prevention, depending on the level of awareness of regulators.
," Jiang said. Huang Dazhao,
, said that for a long time, the Eu misinterpreted the "precautionary principle" of biological safety risks, and over-evaluated and managed the safety of GM technology on the basis of "process" rather than "product", which not only violated the scientific spirit of pragmatic innovation, but also opened the door to the proliferation of anti-scientific ideas and political interference.
and the United States adopted scientific principles, only consider the final product whether there is a new substance appearing, regardless of the production process of this product, therefore, like the treatment of genetically modified, the United States does not treat genome editing special treatment, separate supervision.
"The regulatory principles of the United States are objectively clear, and regardless of the new technology, only the emergence of new substances will be considered, which will not affect regulatory decision-making and processes."
euregulatory principles dictate that whenever new technologies emerge, it is necessary to re-judge whether they need to be included in the GM regulatory framework.
," Jiang said.
's fatal blow to EU biotechnology, while some environmental groups welcomed the ruling, many EU breeding experts said it was a "fatal blow" to the EU's plant biotechnology sector.
" Biotechnology, as one of the important fields of high-tech development in the world today, is facing a series of new and revolutionary breakthroughs.
looking back, many European countries once as the cradle of life science and famous history, however, unfortunately, in the past 30 years due to the obstruction of a variety of conservative forces and the spirit of science, missed the rare opportunity for the development of biotechnology, become the biggest resistance and application of genetically modified research and application of the biggest resistance and the biggest loser.
," Huang said.
the EU's regulations have led to gm crop cultivation and pre-marketing approval son-in-time of three to 10 years, typically costing $100 million to $150 million, greatly increasing social costs, delaying the application of technology and hampering the participation of small and medium-sized technology companies.
" the incident reflects the political drag on science, which is also the EU scientific community's consensus on the EU's GM policy.
" Jiang said, the most critical of such divergences from science is the EU's own scientists. Liu Dingfu, chairman of Wuhan Jinyu Good Seed Technology Co., Ltd.,
, said that countries and regions that oppose AND question GM have not only lost their chances in the face of the historic opportunity for the commercialization of GM crops, but have fallen behind by at least 20 years.
, the BBC quoted Professor Nigel Halford, a crop geneticist at the Lausanne Institute in the UK, as saying that Europe would lose the next 20 years of agricultural biotechnology, which would have fallen behind a generation.
.