Send to

Choose Destination
Environ Sci Eur. 2018;30(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s12302-018-0182-9. Epub 2018 Dec 20.

European Court of Justice ruling regarding new genetic engineering methods scientifically justified: a commentary on the biased reporting about the recent ruling.

Author information

Critical Scientists Switzerland (CSS Board), Dändlikerrain 3, 3014 Berne, Switzerland.
Semnar/Seed Policy & Science, Tempikon 2, 6283 Baldegg, Switzerland.
European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER Board), Marienstrasse 19/20, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
4Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Institute of Integrative Biology, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.


In July 2018, the European Court of Justice (Case C-528/16) ruled that organisms obtained by directed mutagenesis techniques are to be regarded as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the meaning of Directive 2001/18. The ruling marked the next round of the dispute around agricultural genetic engineering in Europe. Many of the pros and cons presented in this dispute are familiar from the debate around the first generation of genetic engineering techniques. The current wave of enthusiasm for the new genetic engineering methods, with its claim to make good on the failed promises of the previous wave, seems to point more to an admission of failure of the last generation of genetic engineering than to a true change of paradigm. Regulation is being portrayed as a ban on research and use, which is factually incorrect, and the judges of the European Court of Justice are being defamed as espousing "pseudoscience". Furthermore, this highly polarised position dominates the media reporting of the new techniques and the court's ruling. Advocates of the new genetic engineering techniques appear to believe that their benefits are so clear that furnishing reliable scientific evidence is unnecessary. Meanwhile, critics who believe that the institution of science is in a serious crisis are on the increase not just due to the cases of obvious documented scientific misconduct by companies and scientists, but also due to the approach of dividing the world into those categorically for or against genetic engineering. In this construct of irreconcilable opposites, differentiations fall by the wayside. This article is a response to this one-sided and biased reporting, which often has the appearance of spin and lacks journalistic ethics that require journalists to report on different positions in a balanced and factual manner instead of taking positions and becoming undeclared advocates themselves.


Bias; European Court of Justice; Media; New techniques of genetic engineering; Precautionary principle

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center