Legal and political hybridity of the European Union – genetically modified organisms’ case (original) (raw)
Related papers
The EU regulatory framework on GMOs has always been featured by a high degree of har-monisation and centralisation, resulting in a loss in its States' regulatory power. However, the EU harmonisation process has gone through several controversies over the years; as a consequence, the EU institutions have increasingly striven to support the pressing requests of Member States with a view towards granting the latter greater room to manoeuvre and decide as regards GMOs cultivation, starting from coexistence concerns. This article briefly analyses the changes recently introduced by means of Directive 2015/412/EU as regards the cultivation of GMOs, from the point of view of the evolution of the EU regulatory framework and national attitudes towards the risks and benefits linked to biotechnology derived products and their production. According to the new Directive 2015/412, amending Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs, Member States are entitled to enact measures restricting or banning the cultivation of GM crops on their territory complying with several so called " compelling grounds ". In the light of the diverse nature of such reasons, and considering the hostility expressed by Member States towards GMOs over the years, some doubts arise as to whether the exercise of the new regulatory powers by Member States will comply with the 'EU acquis'. What is certain is that today, after more than a decade since the big reform of 2001-2003, the EU GMO regime is still one of the much-contested policy sectors in the 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.
Book Review: EU Policy Making on GMOs: The False Promise of Proceduralism
Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2020
This monograph examines the regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the European Union. Analysis of the institutions of the European Union, in particular the European Commission, leads to the conclusion that technocratic governance relies too heavily on assumed objective scientific assessment, with not enough focus on cultural or socioeconomic factors.
The Cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms in the European Union: A Necessary Trade-Off?
2014
This article analyzes the reasons why in 2010 the European Commission proposed a legislative framework on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that could give some powers back to the Member States. This legislative proposal is puzzling since it moves the centre of decision-making regarding the cultivation of GMOs from the EU level back to the domestic level and it also contradicts the generally acknowledged behaviour of the Commission as a competence maximizer. Using a multilevel governance perspective and based on an extensive literature review and semistructured interviews, the article examines the dynamics and relationships between the various levels of governance that generated pressures on the Commission to issue this counterintuitive proposal. The findings suggest that the Commission is making a (necessary) trade-off between, on the one hand, the respect of international obligations and the preservation of the internal market, and on the other hand, internal pressures towards stricter regulation of GMOs.
EUROPEAN UNION AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
Abstract Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have become a part of our daily lives. Genetics applied in food production is a topic, the consideration of which involves conflicting ethical issues, and highly opposing opinions. On one side, we have the proponents of GMOs as a 'welfare' for mankind, because, according to them, this kind of new technology should improve the quality of life and to provide sufficient food for all people. Opponents of GMO foods indicate possible effects on human health and are warning us that the product of this 'playing' with genetics can result in monstrous organisms. For the public to form the appropriate attitude and informed opinion on GM technology and its consequences, provision of timely and easily understandable and objective information is necessary, which should help in shedding the light on the true nature of GMOs and the role of the Codex Alimentarius. This paper focuses on the EU countries and their relation to this type of food.
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.
forthcoming in C. Joerges & C. Glinski (eds) The European Crisis and the Transformation of Transnational Governance, Hart Publishing, 2014
This paper analyzes the problems of EU risk regulation of agricultural biotechnology through the lens of deliberative theories of EU law and governance, such as deliberative supranationalism and experimentalist governance. Previous research had suggested that the GMO issue is not conductive to deliberation in both Council of Ministers and comitology because of its high politicisation. This paper argues that another equally salient factor is the scientification of the EU authorization process. Scientification stands for the Commission’s overreliance on regulatory science, and therefore on epistemic legitimacy as the sole basis for risk management. Given the deadlock of comitology in this field, scientification is exacerbated by a reversion to top-down regulation by the Commission. As a result, political responsibility for GMO authorisations gets lost. Through an in-depth analysis of both legal rules and institutional practices this contribution reframes the problem of GMO regulation as one of a precarious co-production between scientification and politicisation. It shows that both processes are mutually accelerative ultimately leading to a break down of dialog at EU level. This contradicts the assumption that deliberation is fostered by technocratic ‘behind closed door’ decision-making. In the GMO case the top-down imposition of epistemic authority has only increased politicisation contributing to the de-legitimation of all EU institutions involved in GMO regulation (i.e. European Food Safety Authority, Commission, comitology committees, and Council of Ministers).
Can Science Tame Politics: The Collapse of the New GMO Regime in the EU
In the article I present the results of a case study of the authorisation of a GMO potato in the European Union. It was the first authorisation for cultivation for more than a decade and was so controversial that it was immediately followed by Commission's own proposal for change of the regulatory regime. The case is exemplary for the relationships between scientific expertise and administrative regulation. It was expected that by limiting the scope of facts relevant for the decision to "science-only," the authorisations will be placed on firm objective grounds and the political controversies will be reduced. The main conclusion from my study is that the opposite happens - when expertise is so overtaxed science gets politicised while the exclusion of socio-economic factors delegitimises the regime as a whole.In the end I suggest that in order to avoid such tensions instead of drawing boundaries between science and democracy briges between them should be build so that a...
Law, Innovation and Technology, 2019
The cultivation of GM crops in Europe has a long history of disagreement. While the legal framework is based on a safety assessment, the disagreement goes beyond such risks and is rooted in political, social and cultural grounds. In 2015, with the discussion having become deadlocked-neither Member States (MS) who wanted to cultivate GM crops nor those who did not could have their way-Directive (EU) 2015/412 was adopted. This Directive which, in addition to the safety assessment, enables MS to prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory based on non-safety considerations, was supposed to remove the deadlock and give MS autonomy to restrict cultivation. However, as of 2018, it seems that this approach has been only partially successful. In this article, we identify factors limiting the effective use of the new Directive; and, then using Poort's model of interactive legislation combined with an ethos of controversies, we analyse the potential of the Directive.