Table 1.

The analysed legislative proposals and their respective main characteristics.

No.	Proponent	Nature of deregulation	Scope of deregulation	Formal approval	Type of institution
1	Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Leopoldina et al, 2019)	Change in definition: only organisms containing recombinant DNA are GMOs. Null segregants, products of SDN1 and SDN2 and cisgenesis are not GMO	All organisms	Confirmation of status	Academic institution
2	Association Française des Biotechnologies Végétales/Wissenschaftlerkreis Grüne Gentechnik e.V. (AFBV & WGG, 2020)	Exclusion of null segregants. Exemption of products of SDN1 and SDN2, and cisgenesis/intragenesis.	All organisms (but the authors claim that they had plants in mind)	Confirmation of status	NGO
3	The Government of the Kingdom of Netherlands (The Government of Netherlands, 2017)	Exemption of plants being products of SDN1 and SDN2, cisgenesis/intragenesis and null segregants.	Plants	Justification after the release, at the behest of the European Commission or member state	Government
4	Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Leopoldina et al, 2019)	Exemption of null segregants, products of SDN1 and SDN2 and cisgenesis.	All organisms	Confirmation of status	Academic institution
5	Grow Scientific Progress (European Citizen’s Initiative, 2019)	Exemption of various products based on a pre‐approved list of traits known to exist in the past.	Organisms featuring predefined traits	Notification procedure	Group of students
6	A coalition of Norwegian experts coordinated by the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board (Bratlie et al, 2019)	Tiered approach: Exclusion of null segregants; products of genome editing that could be achieved during conventional breeding subject to notification; products of cisgenesis/intragenesis subject to expedited approval.	All organisms	Depending on nature of the changes	Expert body

GMO, genetically modified organism; NGO, non‐governmental organisation; SDN, site‐directed nuclease.