INTERNATIONAL POLICIES AND GLOBAL TRADE OF GMO/NGTS
EXPLORING HOW COUNTRIES ARE ADDRESSING THE SCIENTIFIC AND LEGAL CHALLENGES OF GENOME EDITING IN AGRICULTURE, AS WELL AS HOW THESE REGULATIONS RELATE TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
NGTs are “techniques that are capable of altering the gene material of an organism and that have emerged or have been mainly developed since 2001,” as outlined by the Joint Research Centre. Approaches to regulating organisms and products obtained by NGTs vary widely across countries.
In the report “International policies and global trade of GMO/NGTs” Nicolas Defarge and Gustavo R. Rodríguez, from the Universidad Nacional de Rosario (UNR) in Argentina, identify four main regulatory models currently in use:
- South Africa and New Zealand maintain strict regulations, classifying NGT products as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). A similar approach has the European Union and Switzerland, where the debate is still ongoing.
- India, Bangladesh, China, and Russia apply similar frameworks to GMOs but with some procedural simplifications.
- Japan and most Central and Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Paraguay) exempt some NGT products from GMO laws, as long as they do not contain foreign DNA. Argentina, since 2015, has applied a product-based regulatory approach that assesses the outcome rather than the method used – a model later adopted by other Latin American countries.
- Australia and Canada apply limited supervision to specific types of NGT methods, particularly those using SDN-1 (Site Directed Nucleases 1) techniques.
The report concludes that regulatory harmonisation remains a challenge, particularly in the context of global trade. Ongoing discussions in multiple regions suggest that future changes could impact not only scientific progress but also market access and public confidence in biotechnology.
The diversity of regulatory models also has implications for international trade. Some countries, as Brazil and Chile, publish detailed data on authorised genome-edited organisms, while others, for example Argentina, do not disclose this information publicly. According to the report, only a few countries have reduced regulatory requirements for certain NGT products, and most of them remain engaged in ongoing debates under international biosafety agreements.
This analysis forms part of the Darwin project’s ongoing effort to track and inform regulatory developments related to NGTs worldwide.
Read the full report.
With the contribution of Nicolas Defarge and Gustavo R. Rodríguez from the Universidad Nacional de Rosario (UNR).
Photo by Elena Mozhvilo on Unsplash
