Consistent risk regulation? Differences in the European regulation of food crops

Abstract

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.

The Deadlock in European Decision-Making on GMOs as a Wicked Problem by Design: A Need for Repoliticization

“…Their decisions are supposed to reflect views about “the common good” and “the good society” and determine both liberties and rights of the general public and stakeholders. However, the view of the “good society” reflected in the regulations cannot (fully) overlap with all different individual views on “a good life.” The GMO regulations have been criticized on scientific (Amman 2014), risk (Edvardsson Björnberg, Zetterberg, and Ove Hansson 2018), and legal grounds (Christiansen, Marchman Andersen, and Kappel 2019), but they may still be justified from a societal perspective. Justified, because the regulations reflect the plurality of views on “the common good” or visions on “the good society,” while acknowledging moral disagreements.…”