We have previously posted (October 8) the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) decision in Bablok v. Freistaat Bayern noting that it has created considerable confusion and controversy among students and practitioners who follow European GMO regulation and GMO food labeling.

We now post the October 18 decision of the ECJ in Brustle v. Greenpeace as a further example of the increasingly active role which the ECJ, the European Union’s highest court, is playing in deciding cases which turn upon regulatory science issues. The questions presented in Brustle v. Greenpeace are not related to food labeling or food safety. Rather, they relate to the patentability of inventions derived from any process or research which entails the destruction of human embryos.

This decision is beyond the scope of our food labeling and food safety discussions. However, it offers considerable insight into the direction that the ECJ is taking in addressing scientific and regulatory science issues.

We recommend reading the full text of this controversial decision rather than relying upon media accounts. 

The complete text of the decision is posted below as well as the ECJ Press Release.