Hi all,
Thanks Johanna for the find, the article is indeed quite strange, and mixes up a lot of issues.
It is written by a journalist who claims to be independent, but is clearly against organic agriculture, and writes essentially for the agricultural industry.
The underlying goal of the article is to try to undermine the CJUE ruling and the work done by French organisations... He is using the NPOS petition (and an Ifoam event held in February 2021) to show that there are disagreements within the movement against new genetic engineering. But his argumentation is flawed... He does not even refer to the criteria of patentability that are the core of the NPOS petition and demands, but simply infers that the qualification of random mutagenesis as a GMO by the Court would open the door to their patentability. You know very well that the criteria for patentability are different, and not linked to the GMO Directive per se....
To my knowledge, there has been no communication from NPOS on the CJUE ruling, and there should not be either, we are talking about two different bodies of law. In my opinion, the core of the problem here might come from the assumptions made by this journalist (and also others) on the definition of 'conventional breeding'.
Don't know whether it is useful to react, because his reach does not seem to be that large, but important to know and keep in mind, as some reaction might follow from other stakeholders...
Best
Fulya
Fulya BATUR, PhD Consultancy, Training, Research & Legal Advice www.kybele-consult.comhttp://www.kybele-consult.com/ 0032.484.77.86.18
From: Npos_2018 npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de On Behalf Of Johanna Eckhardt Sent: Monday, 7 February 2022 10:48 To: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Subject: [Npos_2018] Article about mutagenesis
Dear all,
here is an interesting article (in French) about the mutagenesis discussion between NPOS, organic farmers and Confédération Paysanne/Guy Kastler. https://www.agriculture-environnement.fr/2022/02/04/le-camp-des-anti-ogm-div...
Most important points (summary, not my comments):
* the ruling of the ECJ in 2018 regarding mutagenesis as GMO * problem for organic farmers, because they use many varieties with (random) mutagenesis that are now regarded as (unregulated) GMO * NPOS was as well upset by the ECJ ruling * NPOS started a petition in Nov. asking as well to stop patents on random mutagenesis * NPOS fears that with the ECJ ruling random mutagenesis will not be regarded as conventional breeding anymore and thus can be patented. A collateral damage that Guy Kastler had obviously not anticipated. * NPOS says that the lines between GMO and conv. breeding are blurred by companies. * In fact it is rather Guy Kastler and the other French militant anti-GMO who, with their battle against mutagenesis, have blurred the lines, creating an absurd situation for organic farmers and opening the possibility of an extension of patents.
I am not sure, if we ever officially commented on the ECJ ruling, so the article may not 100% accurately reflect the position of NPOS.
Best, Johanna
Mag. Johanna ECKHARDT Project Coordination Tel. +43 680 21 26 343 johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.orgmailto:johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org
NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! www.no-patents-on-seeds.orghttp://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/ www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseedshttp://www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseedhttp://www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed
[logo_NPOS_RGB_WEB_laenglich_580x122px (JPEG) 10]
