Can Science Tame Politics: The Collapse of the New GMO Regime in the EU (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.