̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - EU law

Opinion: GM crop ruling shows why the EU’s laws are wholly inadequate

fpjl2 — Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:05:08 +0000

̽��ֱ��European Court of Justice has made an important ruling on genetically modified crops. Since 2003, new crop varieties produced by genetic modification have had to be assessed for their risks to the environment and human and animal health before they can be farmed in the European Union.

̽��ֱ��court has now decided that genetic modification includes any technique that induces genetic changes “in a way that does not occur naturally”. This includes new genome editing techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9, but also approaches that have been used in plant breeding since the 1960s.

Some scientists have criticised the court for “shutting the door” on new technologies that could benefit human health and the environment. This is certainly a concern. ̽��ֱ��ruling will discourage the use of genome editing that could bring significant environmental benefits by making it more expensive for such such crops to clear the necessary regulatory processes.

But the main problem illustrated by this ruling is the deep logical flaw in the whole regulatory approach. Plants that have been bred in more traditional ways, which could have just as serious health or environmental impacts, will continue to be exempt from regulation. Focusing on how a new crop is produced – rather than the new characteristics or agricultural practices it brings – will inevitably result in wholly inadequate protection for the environment and consumers.

Every new crop variety is genetically different from its predecessors. A lot of genetic variation can arise naturally from errors in DNA copying, mutations caused by environmental factors, cross breeding with wild relatives, viruses and many other sources. All this variation is excluded from the EU definition of GM.

To increase genetic diversity and generally speed things up, scientists can induce mutations deliberately. Random mutagenesis – purposefully encouraging genetic mutations, for example with radiation – has been used on crops since the 1960s. It has since become possible to add specific new genes, sourced from the same or different species. And, even more recently, genome editing techniques have been developed that allow scientists to alter selected existing genes. These more recent approaches are becoming ever more useful as we build up our understanding of which genes do what.

All these techniques can be used to introduce new traits into a crop variety, for example to make a plant resistant to herbicides. ̽��ֱ��new court ruling came about because a group of farming organisations who were worried about the impact of herbicide resistant crops argued they should be regulated regardless of how they were developed.

This seems to me entirely reasonable. There are of plenty of arguments and counterarguments about the risks and benefits of this approach to weed control – and it is important to assess these before introducing a new herbicide resistant crop. None of these arguments have anything to do with how the crop was produced.

Yet the court ruling means that herbicide resistant crops produced through conventional breeding can be used freely, while crops produced using newer approaches must be subjected to intense scrutiny. So the farming groups might be happy that a new generation of herbicide resistant crops will have to be extensively assessed for their environmental and health impacts. But herbicide resistant crops produced by traditional methods, which raise identical concerns, will remain exempt from these regulations.

Natural’s not in it

This highlights the central problem with the EU regulations on new crop varieties. Anything that could occur naturally is exempt from scrutiny. Yet drawing a line between the natural and artificial is difficult to say the least. After thousands of years of careful human intervention, most “natural” crops look nothing like their wild ancestor. They have many characteristics that mean they would not last more than a few generations if they had to compete in the wild.

One of the reasons we have spent so long breeding them is that many natural plants carry serious risks. Very few people would say to their children: “Go into the woods and eat anything you can find. It’s all natural so it must be good for you.” ̽��ֱ��distinction between natural and artificial is both contrived and not relevant when it comes to environmental and health impact assessment.

We should assess new crop varieties on the traits they are supposed to deliver, not on how those traits were introduced. ̽��ֱ��system needs to be proportional and risk-based. This should of course include consideration of the unintended effects of whatever genetic improvement process was used. Instead we spend years debating whether or not a new technique counts as genetic modification or not. That this is even a relevant question lays bare the flaws in our current approach.

This article has been republished from ̽��ֱ��Conversation.

A new EU ruling that attempts to draw a line between natural and artificial when it comes to crop production has a "deep logical flaw" at its heart, writes Professor Ottoline Leyser, Director of the ̽��ֱ��'s Sainsbury Laboratory.

We should assess new crop varieties on the traits they are supposed to deliver, not on how those traits were introduced

Ottoline Leyser

Fernan Federici

Ratiometric measurement of gene expression

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Listen: Cambridge experts talk post-Brexit options for the UK

fpjl2 — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:02:30 +0000

̽��ֱ��one day workshop was run by the Centre For Business Research (CBR) and the Cambridge Public Policy Strategic Research Initiative. On the day, the CBR's Boni Sones sat down with some of the experts to get their take on the major issues facing Brexit Britain. You can listen to their conversations below:

Prof Simon Deakin: Social policy post Brexit and workers’ rights

Simon Deakin is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Centre For Business Research. He specialises in labour law, private law, company law and EU law. His research is concerned, more generally, with the relationship between law and the social sciences.

To what extent we remain outside the Single Market is going to be a matter of degree. ̽��ֱ��current government’s decision for a deep and comprehensive trade agreement actually takes us back in to much of the single market, and we will be bound going forward to single market rules.”
Simon Deakin

Dr Kirsty Hughes: ̽��ֱ��right to remain of EU nationals

Kirsty Hughes is a ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer in Law specialising in Human Rights and Public Law. She lectures on Civil Liberties, European Human Rights Law and Constitutional Law among other areas, and has a forthcoming book on Privacy Theory.

̽��ֱ��suggestion that residency can be used in withdrawal negotiations does seem to be overstating matters given that residency is preserved under human rights law. It will be unlawful for us to expel EU nationals, and given therefore that it would be unlawful it seems particularly insensitive and unfair for EU nationals to be living in a state of uncertainty which is completely unnecessary.
Kirsty Hughes

You can read Dr Hughes's paper on the right to remain of EU nationals in full here.

Dr Michael Waibel: ̽��ֱ��financial cost to the UK of leaving the EU

Michael Waibel is a ̽��ֱ�� Lecturer and Deputy-Director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. He researches economic law with a particular focus on finance and the settlement of international disputes.

̽��ֱ��House of Lords’ assessment as a backdrop to these Brexit negotiations is that there is no legal liability. In purely legal terms I think the House of Lords has got it wrong. ̽��ֱ��UK is in principle liable for a share of the EU’s budget commitments that the UK made as a member of the EU.
Michael Waibel

You can read Dr Waibel's paper on the financial cost of leaving the EU in full here.

Dr Lorand Bartels: ̽��ֱ��WTO option

Lorand Bartels is a Reader in International Law, and teaches international law, WTO law and EU law. He was appointed as a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Select Committee on International Trade at the end of last year.

I think legally nothing changes, in terms of the underlying rules and rights and obligations. At the moment the government’s position, and I think it is absolutely correct, is that the UK has existing rights and obligations in the WTO but you don’t see them at the moment because it is exercised via the EU.
Lorand Bartels

Dr Graham Gudgin: A critique of treasury estimates of the impact of Brexit

Graham Gudgin is currently Research Associate at Cambridge's Centre For Business Research and part-time Senior Economic Advisor with Oxford Economics. He has been a Special Adviser to the Northern Ireland First Minister on economic policy.

Over the past 15 years we have created about 3 million extra jobs in the UK, but that has been associated with a rise of about 85 per cent of people born from abroad, and a high proportion of these work on or at the minimum wage. That is not great for productivity...
Graham Gudgin

Prof David Howarth: ̽��ֱ��UK Constitution, the White Paper and the proposed Repeal Act

David Howarth is a Professor of Law and Public Policy in the Department of Land Economy. He served as the Member of Parliament for Cambridge between 2005 and 2010.

A lot of this process is far too short. Designing and drafting new law is not easy. It can’t be done by amateurs, it can’t be done by politicians on the hoof on the floor of the House of Commons. It needs to be thought through and there is just not enough time to think it through.
David Howarth

Dr Martin Steinfeld: ̽��ֱ��Free Movement of People and EU law

Martin Steinfeld is an Affiliated Lecturer in EU law. He was previously a barrister at the Chancery Bar and worked at both the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

There are many rights that EU citizens exercising their rights to free movement have had for many years. That is a matter for huge discussion on a domestic level in terms of what pieces of legislation may or may not flow to replicate the rights they already have.
Martin Steinfeld

Prof Catherine Barnard, Prof John Bell and Prof Brendan Simms: ̽��ֱ��White Paper; Brexit and Devolution; the Geopolitics of Brexit

Catherine Barnard is a Professor of European Union Law and Fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe programme.
John Bell is a Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Public Law.
Brendan Simms is Professor in the History of International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Studies.

̽��ֱ��actual logistics of disentangling ourselves from the EU are incredibly large and it will take a considerable period of time – certainly more than the two years the government thinks it can be done in.
Catherine Barnard

Dr Julian Ghosh: Brexit and our tax laws

Julian Ghosh is a QC and Bye-Fellow at Peterhouse, Cambridge. His practice covers all areas of taxation. He is particularly well known for his corporate work and that involving European taxation issues.

[Business] could say you said we were subject to EU law previous to this date but this post two year date decision tells us what that law actually is, so see you in court. It is hopeless for the government and business.
Julian Ghosh

On 30 March, the day after the 'triggering' of Article 50 began the official Brexit process, a group of ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge lawyers, economists, historians and tax experts gathered in Peterhouse.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Opinion: ̽��ֱ��Great Repeal Bill White Paper in 20 tweets

fpjl2 — Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:17:59 +0000

The tweets have been collected below. A longer piece from Prof Elliott on the White Paper and the key areas of constitutional law and politics it engages, is available on his blog site Public Law for Everyone.

̽��ֱ��White Paper

̽��ֱ��Great Repeal Bill White Paper has been published. It is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-great-repeal-bill-white-paper

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

General approach

No major changes beyond what's necessary, but will accommodate possibility of functioning statute book if no deal. Hard circle to square. pic.twitter.com/8rifGZpsoe

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

̽��ֱ��three key elements of the Great Repeal Bill:

Repeal ECA

Convert EU law

'Correct' the statute book. pic.twitter.com/pJjOpbJqrN

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

EU law and UK law

Directly applicable EU law will be converted into domestic law.

Domestic law that already gives effect to EU law will be preserved. pic.twitter.com/jz6b023ivU

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

̽��ֱ��case law of the Court of Justice of the EU

UK courts interpreting domesticated EU law will be required to do so 'by reference to ' CJEU case law as it stands on Brexit Day. pic.twitter.com/bauQZDeKn9

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Pre-Brexit Day CJEU case law will have same domestic status in terms of precedent as UK Supreme Court judgments. Music to Brexiters' ears. pic.twitter.com/ViHATAB5qL

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Supremacy of EU law

'General supremacy' of EU law to be ended: new UK legislation will take priority over EU-derived law that is preserved by Great Repeal Bill. pic.twitter.com/yTwKlYjr5h

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

But EU-derived law will continue to take priority over pre-Brexit Day UK law, including Acts of Parliament. More music to Brexiters' ears. pic.twitter.com/GQ2MlwDbFt

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Delegated powers

'Very significant proportion' of EU-derived law contains provisions that will not be workable post-Brexit. ̽��ֱ��solution? Delegated powers. pic.twitter.com/OLHIA4KHnZ

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Delegated powers will enable statute book to be 'corrected'; for problems to be 'rectified'. Devil is in detail of what those terms mean. pic.twitter.com/o1mMJ7D5bD

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

These are circumstances in which Government says secondary legislation will be justified. In combination, these circumstances are very broad pic.twitter.com/ZOaLr0bCzH

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Delegated power not to be used for policy changes unconnected by deficiencies in EU-derived law. Implies some policy changes *will* be made. pic.twitter.com/3A2RUGs05C

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Up to 1,000 statutory instruments (piece of delegated legislation made by Ministers) will be needed to make EU-derived law work post-Brexit. pic.twitter.com/KW4Lib2Emy

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Parliamentary scrutiny

'Right balance' must be struck between need to 'speed' & 'scrutiny'. Existing processes to be used. No plan for super-affirmative procedure pic.twitter.com/VkthcjCSxW

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

White Paper is 'beginning of a discussion' about approach to scrutiny of delegated powers. Govt's thinking looks extremely undeveloped here. pic.twitter.com/7tbXD3XpFL

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

White Paper fails to engage in meaningful way with HL Constitution Committee's detailed proposals for scrutiny. See https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/03/07/the-great-repeal-bill-and-delegated-powers/

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Devolution

Just over one page in the White Paper on 'interaction with the devolution settlements'. pic.twitter.com/D9AiGF0xWZ

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

No guarantee that repatriated EU powers will go to devolved institutions, even in relation to subject-areas that are currently devolved. pic.twitter.com/i1ZxCpN1No

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Implication seems to be *new* reserved matters will be carved out of existing devolution settlements. Raises some Qs of const'l politics.

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

On other hand, even if there are some new reservations to devolved competence, Govt anticipates overall net expansion of devolved competence pic.twitter.com/QMPP24b3yk

— Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott) March 30, 2017

Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law, posted a number of tweets yesterday extracting key paragraphs from the Government’s White Paper on the Great Repeal Bill and offering some preliminary thoughts.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes