The Right to Adopt Post-Market Restrictions of Genetically Modified Crops in the EU – A Shift from De-Centralised Multi-Level to Centralised Governance in the Case of GM Foods (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking About Judicial Review in the WTO
Current Legal Problems, 2004
This paper examines the role of 'judicial review'in the WTO, by reference to a case study on the European regulation of GMOs. It argues that 'judicial review' may, in this setting, be conceived as re-enforcing rather than negating democracy, by enhancing accountability, and in particular the external accountability of states. It draws on the work of Robert Keohane, who understands external accountability as accountability to people who while situated outside of a given polity are affected by decisions adopted within it. The paper supports this argument with reference to cases such as Shrimp/Turtle and, more recently, GSP. It concedes, however that as the Appellate Body of the WTO comes to elaborate stronger substantive benchmarks for review-rationality or proportionality type tests-'judicial review' also raises a democracy dilemma for the WTO. One aspect of this dilemma concerns the place of public opinion in risk regulation, and the legal entitlement of Member State governments to be responsive, in their regulation, to such opinion. This democracy dilemma presents an audacious challenge for the WTO, and one which admits of no easy or absolute answers. European Regulation of GMOs The European approach to the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is predicated upon the concept of prior approval. The legal framework for prior approval is finally in place. Amidst a mass of legislation, two instruments stand out as central, viz. the 2001 Deliberate Release Directive, 1 and the 2003 GM Food and Feed Regulation. 2 As may be exemplified by specific reference to the latter, European Union law performs a threefold function in relation to the prior approval of GMOs. * Reader in European Law, University of Cambridge. Visiting Professor, Columbia Law School (Spring 2004). This paper is based upon a lecture given at University College London in December 2003. It will be published in (2004) Current Legal Problems which is published on behalf of the UCL Faculty of Law. Many thanks to Jane Holder and Michael Freeman for the invitation to present this lecture, and to Lord Hope of Craighead in his capacity as Chair. Thanks also to them and to all present for their thoughtful comments and questions. Gráinne de Búrca, Jeffrey Dunoff, Rob Howse, Maria Lee, Petros Mavroidis, Bill Simon and Margaret Young kindly read a draft of this paper and provided valuable comments; not all of which I have been able to take on board in this paper. Errors and misconceptions definitely remain my own. 1 Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms OJ [2001] L106/1 By way of background reading see T. Hervey, Regulation of Genetically Modified
Towards a new regulatory framework for GM crops in the European Union
Scientific, ethical, social and legal issues and the challenges ahead Aware of the significant potential of nascent biotechnologies, the European Economic Community (the predecessor to the European Union) was one of the first regions in the world to develop a regulatory framework for them. Back in the 1980s, the objective of Community member countries was to strengthen the standards of consensus and collaboration, and of environmental and health safety, as well as to promote an industrial sector of enormous potential. In spite of all effort, towards the end of the 1990s it was a widely accepted fact that a number of political and economic factors were blocking the development of biotechnology in Europe. From that crisis emerged what in some aspects is probably the most comprehensive and rigorous body of regulations for biotechnology in the world today. However, the very high technical level of those regulations did not prevent a new crisis which EU institutions aim to solve with a new regulatory framework. Thus, since March 2015, the way towards the third regulatory framework for Biotechnology in the EU has been open. Will this third regulatory framework finally offer sufficient guarantees to allow a healthy and sustainable development of biotechnology in the EU? What do we need to do so that 'third time is lucky'? In this work, a group of European and non-European experts, from different disciplines and approaches, discuss the past and the present, as well as the various possible futures, of Genetically Modified Crops in the EU.
CEFAGE-UE Working Papers, 2008
The biggest producers and exporters of agricultural products have been adopting the genetic engineering in order to improve the factors productivity and the firms profits In the last decade, the United States of America (US) and the European Union (EU) have established a high divergent regulation on production, distribution and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Apparently, the EU´s complex legislative framework related to GMOs was intend to satisfy the European consumers which are concerned about food safety and whish to make more informed choice about the food they eat. The aim of this paper is to understand the potential motivations behind the different policies on GM products adopted by US and EU.
GM Crops & Food, 2016
Independent researcher, Carugo (Como), Italy ABSTRACT 1. The EU regulation of agricultural biotechnology is botched and convoluted: the pseudo-concept of "Genetically Modified Organisms" has no coherent semantic or scientific content. The reasons of the paradox by which the cultivation of "GMOs" is substantially banned in Europe, while enormous quantities of recombinant-DNA cereals and legumes are imported to be used as feedstuff, are explained. The Directive 2015/412, giving Member states the choice to refuse the cultivation of genetically engineered crops at a national or local level, paves the way for a mosaic-like, Harlequinesque form of protectionism: nothing resembling a well-regulated free market. In the meantime, importation of "GMO" feed goes on at full speed all over Europe. A proposal by the Commission to adjust the rules on importation according to those for cultivation has been rejected by the Parliament. This dynamics may be seen as an ongoing "Schumpeterian" chain of public choices: the calculus of consent drives politicians more than a science-based approach to law-making. The EU should restart from scratch with the right concept, i.e. the careful examination of the pros and cons, the costs and benefits of each new agricultural product ("GMO" or otherwise), freely cultivated and/or imported, assessed case by case, at last acknowledging that the biotech processes used to create new varieties are of no practical or legal relevance. In doing so, the EU would pursue its stated "better regulation" approach, cancelling any sectoral and sectarian regulation.
Lacks and possible improvements in European Union law concerning GMOs
World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 2014
Because of the complexity of many environmental problems, we need their holistic assessment. That is why, in such a matter, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary. It has also been the guiding line for this present study on the European regulation of the GMOs, crossing the different points of view of a lawyer and a biologist. According to the European legislation, molecular biology and dissemination of genetically modified organisms are mainly regulated by two major directives of the European Parliament and of the Council: Directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms, and Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Two different approaches are possible to analyse those directives and suggest possible improvements.
Are current EU policies on GMOs justified?
Transgenic Research, 2019
The European Court of Justice's recent ruling that the new techniques for crop development are to be considered as genetically modified organisms under the European Union's regulations exacerbates the need for a critical evaluation of those regulations. The paper analyzes the regulation from the perspective of moral and political philosophy. It considers whether influential arguments for restrictions of genetically modified organisms provide cogent justifications for the policies that are in place, in particular a pre-release authorization requirement, mandatory labelling, and de facto bans (in the form of withholding or opting out of authorizations). It is argued that arguments pertaining to risk can justify some form of pre-release authorization scheme, although not necessarily the current one, but that neither de facto bans nor mandatory labelling can be justified by reference to common arguments concerning naturalness, agricultural policy (in particular the promotion of organic farming), socioeconomic effects, or consumers' right to choose.
The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union
Environmental biosafety research
Recapitulating how genetic modification technology and its agro-food products aroused strong societal opposition in the European Union, this paper demonstrates how this opposition contributed to shape the European regulatory frame on GM crops. More specifically, it describes how this opposition contributed to a de facto moratorium on the commercialization of new GM crop events in the end of the nineties. From this period onwards, the regulatory frame has been continuously revised in order to slow down further erosion of public and market confidence. Various scientific and technical reforms were made to meet societal concerns relating to the safety of GM crops. In this context, the precautionary principle, environmental post-market monitoring and traceability were adopted as ways to cope with scientific uncertainties. Labeling, traceability, co-existence and public information were installed in an attempt to meet the general public request for more information about GM agro-food prod...