In July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its final ruling on the much anticipated Confédération Paysanne & Others case on the regulation of mutagenic plants in the European Union (EU). Advocate General Bobek had opined that mutagenic techniques for the development of novel plant varieties should be exempted from the stringent provisions set out in the EU genetically modified organisms (GMO) Directive. It came as somewhat of a surprise, therefore, when the Court of Justice, in its final ruling, took a diametrically opposite point of view to that of the Advocate General, and concluded that novel mutagenic techniques must be subject to the provisions set out in the EU's various regulations relating to GMOs. The scientific community are now calling for the European Commission to consider new legislation to take account of novel plant breeding techniques. This case note sets out how the CJEU reached its conclusions, explains why the GMO Directive is not anti‐science and considers the important role that defining ‘natural’ within a legal context will play in the forthcoming debate on science, innovation and novel plant breeding techniques.

中文翻译：

---

握住移液器：欧洲法院在Paysanne联邦调查局及其他法院的调查结果激起了GMOtions

2018年7月，欧洲联盟法院（CJEU）对备受期待的Paysanne等人做出了最终裁决欧洲联盟（EU）的诱变植物监管案例。倡导者Bobek认为，用于开发植物新品种的诱变技术应不受欧盟转基因生物（GMO）指令中规定的严格规定的约束。因此，当法院在其最终裁决中采取了与副检察长截然相反的观点，并得出结论认为，新颖的诱变技术必须服从于欧盟有关转基因生物的各种法规。科学界现在呼吁欧盟委员会考虑新的立法，以考虑到新颖的植物育种技术。本案例说明阐明了欧洲法院如何得出结论，