• Journal of Plant Biotechnology
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.137-142
• /
• 2019

Gene edited crops can be classified as SDN-1, SDN-2 and SDN-3 group depending on their mutation's range and the usage of donor DNA. The SDN-1 and SDN-2 crops, in particular, could be developed as 100% transgene-free, which do not contain any DNA fragment of the vector or guide RNA used for gene editing such as CRISPR Cas9 system. Therefore, there are no scientific methods available for the detection of these crops and differentiation with the one produced by conventional cross breeding techniques. Additionally, it would be impossible to properly implement the existing GMO regulation law, in particular, the national legislation for "GMO labelling". In this regard, Australia has announced that SDN-1 crops will not be subjected to the existing GMO regulation. Furthermore, Argentina and Brazil have established a new policy that GE crops with no transgene (100% transgene-free crops) should be exempted from the scope of the GMO. In addition, Japan has also announced that "an organism that has no remnants of inserted nucleic acid processed extracellularly is not subjected to the Cartagena Act". It means that SDN-2 crops can also be exempted from the scope of GMO. In this trend, in South Korea, I suggested that gene edited crops with no remnants of inserted foreign DNA fragments should be excluded from the existing GMO regulation. Thus, I expect that diverse elite crop lines should be developed by using advanced gene editing technologies

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.439-455
• /
• 2008

The SPS Agreement, concluded in the Uruguay Round for the purpose of controlling SPS risks, has traditionally been recognized to maintain the narrowest scope of application compared with TBT Agreement and GATT in relation with environmental provisions. Contrary to such an understanding on the scope of the SPS Agreement, the panel in the EC-Biotech case found that the SPS Agreement extends to regulate trade-restrictive measures on Genetically Modified Organizations(GMOs) causing health and environmental risks. This expanding scope of the SPS Agreement would have substantial influence on domestic environmental regulations as well as Multilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs). This paper discusses the consequences of an expanding ambit for the WTO SPS Agreement through the designation of a wider range of health and environmental regulations affecting trade as SPS measures. As a result, not only precautionary measures on GMO risks, but also other health and environmental measures with trade impacts, could be subject to SPS control, and consequently, the institutional rigors of the WTO regime. However, strict and literal interpretation of the SPS provisions to expand its applicable scope would cause concerns about the WTO's intervention on the purely environmental measures. Pursuing harmonized and flexible interpretation of provisions on environment-related conflicts as well as accepting precautionary principle included MEAs will contribute to reduce such kind of concerns.