IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v21y2021i3d10.1007_s10784-020-09516-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From ‘mad cow’ crisis to synthetic biology: challenges to EU regulation of GMOs beyond the European context

Author

Listed:
  • Artem Anyshchenko

    (The University of Queensland
    The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO))

  • Jennifer Yarnold

    (The University of Queensland)

Abstract

This paper provides a historical and legal perspective of EU regulation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—through its initial development to its current position—in view of major advancements of modern molecular biotechnologies used for agriculture. We argue that the emergence and development of EU regulation of GMOs were shaped by antecedent events, notably bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or ‘mad cow disease’ and the public fears that ensued around food safety. These regulatory emergencies were a key factor prompting national governments and EU institutions to work out the framework for the application of the precautionary principle to agricultural biotechnology. Moreover, while modern biotechnology techniques eliminate many of the perceived health and safety risks of earlier predecessors, the EU regulatory framework has been slow to keep up, lacking the proper regulatory tools that allow for a balanced policy approach towards the techniques underlying genome editing and synthetic biology. Difference in approaches to the regulation of GMOs between the EU and US, to a large extent, precipitated the transatlantic conflict over agricultural biotechnology. Specifically, a significant incompatibility between the application of the precautionary principle in the EU and the substantial equivalence in the US to assess GM food and feed risk was the main reason for the international trade dispute. The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union that genome editing techniques will not be warranted exemption from authorisation process suggests that EU policy on agricultural biotechnology is likely to remain stringent. This may complicate the progress of synthetic biology and render the EU vulnerable to future food security and economic contingencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Artem Anyshchenko & Jennifer Yarnold, 2021. "From ‘mad cow’ crisis to synthetic biology: challenges to EU regulation of GMOs beyond the European context," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 391-404, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:21:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10784-020-09516-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-020-09516-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-020-09516-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-020-09516-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giandomenico Majone, 2002. "The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 89-109, March.
    2. Ronald Herring & Robert Paarlberg, 2016. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 397-416, October.
    3. Genya V. Dana & Todd Kuiken & David Rejeski & Allison A. Snow, 2012. "Four steps to avoid a synthetic-biology disaster," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7387), pages 29-29, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Castellari, Elena & Soregaroli, Claudio & Venus, Thomas J. & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "Food processor and retailer non-GMO standards in the US and EU and the driving role of regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-37.
    3. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    4. Jorge Nufiez Ferrer, 2006. "Increasing the Market Access for Agricultural Products from Bangladesh to the EU," CPD Working Paper 58, Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD).
    5. Vasco Barroso Gonçalves, 2020. "Uncertain Risk Assessment and Management: Case Studies of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in Portugal," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 939-956, May.
    6. Abels, Gabriele, 2002. "Experts, Citizens, and Eurocrats Towards a Policy Shift in the Governance of Biopolitics in the EU," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 6, December.
    7. Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    8. Jorge Nufiez Ferrer, 2006. "Increasing the Market Access for Agricultural Products from Bangladesh to the EU," Trade Working Papers 22288, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    9. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    10. Sangwon Lee & Jil T Geller & Tamas Torok & Cindy H Wu & Mary Singer & Francine C Reid & Daniel R Tarjan & Terry C Hazen & Adam P Arkin & Nathan J Hillson, 2014. "Characterization of Wastewater Treatment Plant Microbial Communities and the Effects of Carbon Sources on Diversity in Laboratory Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Annette Weier & Paul Loke, 2007. "Precaution and the Precautionary Principle: two Australian case studies," Staff Working Papers 0705, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    12. Jale Tosun, 2017. "On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 563-572, December.
    13. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky & Michael K Adjemian, 2021. "Not All Thin Markets Are Alike: The Case of Organic and Non‐genetically Engineered Corn and Soybeans," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 117-133, February.
    15. John Paterson, 2007. "Sustainable development, sustainable decisions and the precautionary principle," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 42(3), pages 515-528, September.
    16. Jonathan Symons & Thomas A. Dixon & Jacqueline Dalziell & Natalie Curach & Ian T. Paulsen & Anthony Wiskich & Isak S. Pretorius, 2024. "Engineering biology and climate change mitigation: Policy considerations," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. Turvey, Calum G. & Mojduszka, Eliza M., 2005. "The Precautionary Principle and the law of unintended consequences," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 145-161, April.
    18. Basili, Marcello & Chateauneuf, Alain & Fontini, Fulvio, 2008. "Precautionary principle as a rule of choice with optimism on windfall gains and pessimism on catastrophic losses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 485-491, October.
    19. Davide Viaggi & Matteo Zavalloni, 2021. "Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: Implications for Economic Evaluation in the Post-COVID Era," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    20. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Gordon, Ben, 2018. "The political economy of labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 6-13.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:21:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10784-020-09516-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.