In recent years, the EU legislation on genetically modified (GM) crops has come under severe criticism. Among the arguments are that the present legislation is inconsistent, disproportionate, obsolete from a scientific point of view, and vague in terms of its scope. In this paper, the EU GM legislation (mainly the ''Release Directive'', 2001/18/EC) is analysed based on five proposed criteria: legal certainty, non-discrimination, proportionality, scientific adaptability, and inclusion of non-safety considerations. It is argued that the European regulatory framework does not at present satisfy the criteria of legal certainty, non-discrimination, and scientific adaptability. Two ways of reforming the present legislation toward greater accommodation of the values expressed through the proposed criteria are briefly introduced and discussed.

In the EU legal system, there is a large difference between the procedures and requirements for the introduction of crops that are classified as genetically modified (GM) and crops not so classified. In order to investigate whether this regulatory divide is compatible with real risks two cases of GM crops and two cases of non-GM crops are scrutinized. It is concluded that the regulatory divide cannot be justified from the viewpoint of risk assessment, since the GM/non-GM dichotomy is not an accurate indicator of either health risk or environmental risk. Much better such indicators are available and should form the basis of a legislation aimed at preventing the introduction of crops that are harmful for human health or the environment. If the legislator has other reasons to regulate GM crops differently than conventional crops, then those reasons should be stated in the legislation and determine the types of measures that it prescribes.

No abstract

No abstract