Maximum vs. Minimum Harmonization: What to expect from the institutional and legal battles in the EU on Gene editing technologies?

New Plant Breeding Technologies (NPBTs), including CRISPR gene editing, are widely used and drive the development of new crops. However, these new technologies are disputed, creating uncertainty in how applications of these technologies for agricultural and food uses will be regulated. While in North America regulatory systems respond with a differentiated approach to NPBTs, the Court of Justice of the European Union has in effect made most if not all NPBT subject to the same regulatory regime as GMOs. Since, discussion on the regulatory reform of the EU's GM legal systems are underway. This paper discusses from a law and economics point of view different options that are available for the EU's multi-level legal order considering the multi-level nature of the EU's legal order and the international environment in which the EU is embedded. Using an ex-ante regulation versus ex-post liability framework allows us to address the economic implications of different options. The results show that under current conditions, some options are more expensive than others. The least costly option encompasses regulating new crops derived from NPBTs similar to those used in "conventional" breeding. The current regulatory situation in the EU, namely making the use of NPBTs subject to the same conditions as GMOs, is the most costly option. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.