Managing Novel Food Technologies and Member States’ Interests

Shifting More Powers Towards the Member States?
  • Ludivine PetetinEmail author


The contentiousness surrounding novel food technologies and their risks is reflected in the tensions between the different actors involved in the EU decision-making process. Asymmetric relationships between competing European and national policy choices have led EU Member States to challenge the current governance system and existing regulatory frameworks that do not accommodate consumer concerns and more generally non-scientific factors. This chapter argues that initiatives that aim to challenge and reverse the trend towards centralisation are crucial to the strengthening of the EU system by giving greater leeway to the Member States in the authorisation procedures for novel food technologies. With multilevel governance and subsidiarity, the control and influence of supra-national entities are limited and lower level entities play a growing role in the regulation of novel food technologies. In contrast, fragmentation within the risk analysis for novel food technologies favours the weight of scientific evidence within the decision-making process and encourages centralisation. This problematic fragmentation must be tackled since it prevents non-scientific factors from being considered across the whole approval systems for novel food technologies.


  1. Anker, H. T., & Grossman, M. R. (2009). Authorization of genetically modified organisms: Precaution in US and EC law. European Food and Feed Law Review, 4, 3–22.Google Scholar
  2. Barroso, J. M. (2009). Political guidelines for the next commission. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Bergkamp, L. (2002). Understanding the precautionary principle. Environmental Liability, 10(2), 67–82.Google Scholar
  4. Cazala, J. (2004). Food safety and the precautionary principle: The legitimate moderation of Community courts. European Law Journal, 10, 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2008). Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology. FAO CAC/GL 44-2008.Google Scholar
  6. Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2010). Procedural manual. Rome: FAO and WHO.Google Scholar
  7. Coghlan, A. (2005, August 27). Enter the superweed. New Scientist, 17.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, P. (2012). Subsidiarity: A legal and political analysis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50, 72–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, G. (2006). Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Common Market Law Review, 43, 63–84.Google Scholar
  10. de Sadeleer, N. (2006). The precautionary principle in EC health and environmental law. European Law Journal, 12, 139–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Sadeleer, N. (2007). The precautionary principle in European Community health and environmental law: Sword or shield for the Nordic countries? In N. de Sadeleer (Ed.), Implementing the precautionary principle: Approaches from the Nordic countries, EU and US (pp. 10–58). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  12. Dobbs, M. (2016). Attaining subsidiarity-based multilevel governance of genetically modified cultivation? Journal of Environmental Law, 28, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Echols, M. A. (1998). Food safety regulation in the European Union and the United States: Different cultures, different laws. Columbia Journal of European Law, 4, 525–543.Google Scholar
  14. Engel, A., & Petetin, L. (2018). International obligations and devolved powers – Ploughing through competences and GM crops. Environmental Law Review, 20, 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Euractiv. (2014, December 5). EU agreement opens door for new GMO cultivation in 2015. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  16. Euractiv. (2015a, January 13). MEPs approve national ban on GM cops cultivation. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  17. Euractiv. (2015b, October 29). EU lawmakers reject national bans on GM food, feed imports. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  18. Eurobarometer. (2008). Europeans’ attitudes towards animal cloning. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  19. European Commission. (2000). Commission Communication on the precautionary principle COM(2000) 1 final.Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2001). White Paper on European governance COM(2001) 428 final.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2010a). Commission Communication: The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future COM(2010) 672 final.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2010b). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change?. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  23. European Commission. (2012). Sustainable agriculture for the future we want. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  24. European Commission. (2013a). Proposal for a Council Directive on the placing on the market of food from animal clones COM(2013) 893.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. (2013b). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the cloning of animals of the bovine, porcine, ovine, caprine and equine species kept and reproduced for farming purposes COM(2013) 892.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission. (2015a). Commission communication reviewing the decision-making process on GMOs COM(2015) 176 final.Google Scholar
  27. European Commission. (2015b). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory (GM Food Proposal) COM (2015) 177 final.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission. (2017). Restrictions of geographical scope of GMO applications/authorisations: Member States demands and outcomes. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  29. European Parliament. (2010). Position of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 7 July 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods, amending Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001, [2011] OJ C351E/175.Google Scholar
  30. European Parliament. (2015a, October 28). Parliament rejects national GMO bans proposal. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  31. European Parliament. (2015b, September 8). European Parliament/Legislative Observatory. 2013/0433(COD) – Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from
  32. Friant-Perrot, M. (2010). The European Union regulatory regime for genetically modified organisms and its integration into Community food law and policy. In L. Bodiguel & M. Cardwell (Eds.), The regulation of genetically modified organisms: Comparative approaches (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Geelhoed, M. (2016). Divided in diversity: Reforming the EU’s GMO regime. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 18, 20–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graham, J. D., & Hsia, S. (2002). Europe’s precautionary principle: Promise and pitfalls. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hooghe, L. (2001). The European Commission and the integration of Europe: Images of governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hooghe, L. (2012). The European Commission in the 21st century: Core beliefs on EU governance (KFG Working Paper 38). Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  37. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Jasanoff, S. (2006). Biotechnology and empire: The global power of seeds and science. Osiris, 21, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 621–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kass, L. (1997, June 2). The wisdom of repugnance. New Republic, 17–26.Google Scholar
  42. Laaninen, T. (2015). Member States’ possibility to ‘opt out’ from GM food and feed import authorisations. European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 569.029.Google Scholar
  43. Lee, M. (2008). EU regulation of GMOs: Law and decision-making for a new technology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, M. (2016). GMOs in the internal market: New legislation on national flexibility. Modern Law Review, 79, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levidow, L., & Boschert, K. (2008). Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe. Geoforum, 39, 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2007). Europeanising advisory expertise: The role of ‘independent, objective, and transparent’ scientific advice in Agri-biotech regulation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 880–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Macmaolain, C. (2007). EU food law: Protecting consumers and health. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Blank, K. (1996). European integration since the 1980s: State-centric versus multi-level governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 341–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marsden, T., Lee, R., Flynn, A., & Thankappan, S. (Eds.). (2010). The new regulation and governance of food: Beyond the food crisis? New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. McMahon, J. (2007). EU agricultural law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nelsen, A. (2017, September 15). EU Report on Weedkiller safety copied text from Monsanto Study. The Guardian. Retrieved December 17, 2017, from
  52. Petetin, L. (2009). Clone wars? The challenges of cloned food in EU, US and WTO law. Environmental Law Review, 11, 246–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petetin, L. (2014). Frankenburgers, risks and approval. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 5, 168–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petetin, L. (2017a). Precaution and equivalence – The critical interplay in EU biotech foods. European Law Review, 42, 831–847.Google Scholar
  55. Petetin, L. (2017b). The precautionary principle and non-scientific factors in biotech foods. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 8, 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Poli, S. (2013). The Member States’ long and winding road to partial regulatory autonomy in cultivating genetically modified crops in the EU. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2, 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pollack, M. (2003). The engines of European integration: Delegation, agency and agenda setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Randour, F., Janssens, C., & Delreux, T. (2014). The cultivation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union: A necessary trade-off? Journal of Common Market Studies, 52, 1307–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Szajkowska, A. (2010). The impact of the definition of the precautionary principle in EU food law. Common Market Law Review, 47, 173–196.Google Scholar
  60. Szajkowska, A. (2012). Regulating food law: Risk analysis and the precautionary principle as general principles of EU food law. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. UKGOS. (2011). Foresight report on the future of food and farming: Challenges and choices for global sustainability. UK Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
  62. Vandenbruwaene, W. (2014). Multi-level governance through a constitutional prism. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2, 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van der Meulen, B., & Yusuf, N. (2014). One-door-one-key principle: Observations regarding integration of GM authorization procedures in the EU. Penn State Law Review, 118(4), 877–891.Google Scholar
  64. Van Kersbergen, K., & Verbeek, B. (2004). Subsidiarity as a principle of governance in the European Union. Comparative European Politics, 2, 142–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vischer, R. K. (2001). Subsidiarity as a principle of governance: Beyond devolution. Indiana Law Review, 35, 103–142.Google Scholar
  66. Weatherill, S. (2004). Competence creep and competence control. Yearbook of European Law, 23, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wendel, M. (2017). International trade agreements and democratic participation. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 8, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088–2093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. WTO. (2006). Approval and marketing of biotech products, WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R and WT/DS293/R. Retrieved December 19, 2017, from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and PoliticsCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations