The EU legislation on “GMOs” between nonsense and protectionism: An ongoing Schumpeterian chain of public choices

Abstract

ABSTRACT1 . 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.

Biofungicidal Potential of Neosartorya (Aspergillus) Fischeri Antifungal Protein NFAP and Novel Synthetic γ-Core Peptides

“…Primarily, they are applied as recombinant antimicrobial peptides expressed by transgenic plants to confer disease protection (Meng et al, 2010). However, diverse, non-comprehensive international regulations regarding the agricultural application of genetically modified (GM) plants (Tagliabue, 2017) and the prevalence of an anti-GM organism attitude held by policy makers and the general public highly limit the cultivation of these breeds (Lucht, 2015). Furthermore, high production costs, limited information about the antifungal spectrum, the long-term toxic effects regarding plant development and human health are currently obstructing the direct topical application of antifungal peptides and proteins for use as biofungicides or bioprotective agents (Jung and Kang, 2014).…”

Exploring Consumers’ Interest in Choosing Sustainable Food

“…With some of the food-related problems, such as obesity (Hwang et al, 2006;Maiano et al, 2016) or genetically modified food (Holm et al, 2016), health concern is a major incentive (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006;Radnitz et al, 2015) or (Tagliabue, 2017) deterrent for food choice. Seo et al (2016) pointed out that health-related factors can influence people's willingness to buy.…”

“…A problem that may be brought about by the advancement is the mistreatment of livestock (Robbins, 2012) to improve the quality of food products. In order to maintain quality and increase production, genetic and pharmacologic manipulation is common (Tagliabue, 2017). In terms of environmental impact, Steinfeld et al (2006) show that livestock account for 18% of the overall greenhouse gas emissions.…”

Genetically Modified Labeling Policies: Moving Forward or Backward?

“…Risk assessment is a tool for safe transfer, handling, and use of LMOs, specifically focusing on transboundary movements (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005 ). Hence, this sort of labeling is different from the one proposed for GMF in Brazil; this is a clear example of current misunderstanding and misuse of the Precautionary Principle stated in the Protocol (Tagliabue, 2016 ). As mentioned, CAC states that food labeling may be included in the risk management measures, it is not obligatory (CAC, 2008 ).…”