首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology >Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques—Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries
【2h】

Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques—Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries

机译:通过新的基因改造技术开发的植物-欧盟和非欧盟国家现有法规框架的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The development of new genetic modification techniques (nGMs), also referred to as “new (breeding) techniques” in other sources, has raised worldwide discussions regarding their regulation. Different existing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cover nGMs to varying degrees. Coverage of nGMs depends mostly on the regulatory trigger. In general two different trigger systems can be distinguished, taking into account either the process applied during development or the characteristics of the resulting product. A key question is whether regulatory frameworks either based on process- or product-oriented triggers are more advantageous for the regulation of nGM applications. We analyzed regulatory frameworks for GMO from different countries covering both trigger systems with a focus on their applicability to plants developed by various nGMs. The study is based on a literature analysis and qualitative interviews with regulatory experts and risk assessors of GMO in the respective countries. The applied principles of risk assessment are very similar in all investigated countries independent of the applied trigger for regulation. Even though the regulatory trigger is either process- or product-oriented, both triggers systems show features of the respective other in practice. In addition our analysis shows that both trigger systems have a number of generic advantages and disadvantages, but neither system can be regarded as superior at a general level. More decisive for the regulation of organisms or products, especially nGM applications, are the variable criteria and exceptions used to implement the triggers in the different regulatory frameworks. There are discussions and consultations in some countries about whether changes in legislation are necessary to establish a desired level of regulation of nGMs. We identified five strategies for countries that desire to regulate nGM applications for biosafety–ranging from applying existing biosafety frameworks without further amendments to establishing new stand-alone legislation. Due to varying degrees of nGM regulation, international harmonization will supposedly not be achieved in the near future. In the context of international trade, transparency of the regulatory status of individual nGM products is a crucial issue. We therefore propose to introduce an international public registry listing all biotechnology products commercially used in agriculture.
机译:新遗传修饰技术(nGMs)的发展,在其他来源也被称为“新(育种)技术”,引起了关于其调控的全球讨论。现有的转基因生物监管框架在不同程度上涵盖了nGM。 nGM的覆盖率主要取决于监管触发因素。通常,可以考虑开发过程中应用的过程或所得产品的特性来区分两种不同的触发系统。一个关键的问题是,基于过程或面向产品的触发因素的监管框架对于nGM应用的监管是否更有利。我们分析了来自不同国家的转基因生物监管框架,涵盖了两个触发系统,重点是它们对各种非基因改造物开发的植物的适用性。这项研究是基于文献分析和对相关国家转基因生物的监管专家和风险评估者进行的定性采访。在所有被调查国家中,风险评估的适用原则非常相似,而与法规的适用触发因素无关。即使监管触发器是面向过程或面向产品的,但两个触发器系统在实践中都显示了各自的特征。此外,我们的分析表明,两种触发系统都有许多通用的优点和缺点,但是从总体上讲,这两种系统都不能被认为是优越的。对于生物体或产品(尤其是nGM应用)的监管更具决定性的是,在不同监管框架中用于实施触发因素的可变标准和例外情况。一些国家就是否有必要修改法律以建立理想水平的非基因改变监管进行讨论和磋商。我们为希望规范非基因改造生物安全应用的国家确定了五种策略-从应用现有的生物安全框架而不作进一步修改到建立新的独立立法。由于nGM监管的程度不同,据说在不久的将来将无法实现国际统一。在国际贸易的背景下,单个nGM产品监管状况的透明度是至关重要的问题。因此,我们建议引入一个国际公共注册机构,列出所有用于农业的生物技术产品。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号