Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Present and Future EU GMO Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Bioeconomy Economics and Policies: Volume II

Part of the book series: Palgrave Advances in Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies ((PABEP))

Abstract

Regulatory approvals for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the EU differentiate between alternative uses and remain particularly controversial in the case of cultivation. One of the solutions includes nationalizing the approval process, which—depending on its implementation—might offer a solution over the current deadlock situation. Irrespectively, the increased use of new GMOs in many parts of the world, along with a mired regulatory approval process for import of GMOs in the EU, promise increasing incidence of regulatory asynchronicity and structural trade disruptions. Reforms are needed that go beyond the current debate of nationalizing the approval process. The implications of asynchronous approval processes on international trade may also affect other countries and could require a solution at an international level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    GM crops with stacked events are developed by combining multiple individual biotech events (e.g. specific insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GMOs). As the number of new GMO events increases, the number of potential combinations increases non-linearly. In the EU, stacks of approved single events must be reviewed and approved separately. By contrast, in other countries, such as the United States , once individual GMO events have been approved, their combinations do not require separate regulatory approval. New plant breeding technologies often do not allow to differentiate between a GMO and a conventional plant.

  2. 2.

    Such regulatory allowances recognize that perfect segregation of GMOs and conventional crops in the agrifood supply chain is impossible, and hence foods with accidental presence of traces of authorized GMOs need not be labelled.

  3. 3.

    More details about the approval process are available at, for example, European Commission: (https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation_en).

  4. 4.

    EU market access for GM seeds, however, remains restricted.

References

  • Austen, I., and J. Kanter. 2009. Canada Settles a Crop Trade Complaint Against Europe. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/business/global/16gene.html?_r=1&ref=business

  • Backus, Ge, P. Berkhout, D. Eaton, T. de Kleijn, E. van Mil, P. Roza, W. Uffelmann, L. Franke, and B. Lotz. 2009. EU Policy on GMOs: A Quick Scan of the Economic Consequences. The Hague: LEI Wageningen UR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barroso, J.M. 2009. Political Guidelines for the Next Commission. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, V., C. Soregaroli, and J. Wesseler. 2010. Ex-Ante Regulation and Ex-Post Liability Under Uncertainty and Irreversibility: Governing the Coexistence of GM Crops. Economics 4: 2010–2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellari, E., C. Soregaroli, T. Venus, and J. Wesseler. 2018. Food Processor and Retailer Non-GMO Standards in the US and EU and the Driving Role of Regulations. Food Policy 78: 26–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannenberg, A. 2009. The Dispersion and Development of Consumer Preferences for Genetically Modified Food – A Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 68: 2182–2192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demont, M., J. Wesseler, and E. Tollens. 2004. Biodiversity Versus Transgenic Sugar Beets – The One Euro Question. European Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EESC. 2010. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 2001/18/EC as Regards the Possibility for the Member States to Restrict or Prohibit the Cultivation of GMOs in Their Territory COM(2010) 375 Final – 2010/0208 (COD). NAT/480 – CESE 1623/2010–2010/0208 (COD). Available at http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.events-and-activities-467th-plenary-session-documents

  • Eriksson, D., D. Kershen, M. Lema, A. Nepomuceno, B. Pogson, H. Prieto, K. Purnhagen, S. Smyth, J. Wesseler, and A. Whelan. 2019. A Comparison of the EU Regulatory Approach to Directed Mutagenesis with that of Other Jurisdictions, Consequences for International Trade and Potential Steps Forward. New Phytologist 222 (4): 1673–1684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission. 2001. Directive 2001/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union L 106:1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, 2003a. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed. Official Journal of the European Union L 268:1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003b. Question and Answers on the Regulations of GMOs in the EU. Memo/03/196. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001–2010). EUR 24473. Luxemburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 Amending Directive 2001/18/EC as Regards the Possibility for the Member States to Restrict or Prohibit the Cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Their Territory. Official Journal of the European Union L 68: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Council. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. Available at http://www.central2013.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Document_Centre/OP_Resources/HABITAT_DIRECTIVE_92-43-EEC.pdf

  • EU Environmental Council. 1999. 2194th Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 24/25 June 1999. C/99/203/. Retrieved from: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?.reference=PRES/99/203&format=HTML&aged=0&lg=fi&guiLanguage=en

  • GMO Compass. 2011. Genetically Modified Food and Feed: The EU Regulatory Process. Available at http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/

  • ISAAA. 2016. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief No. 52. Ithaca: ISAAA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses, V., et al. 2008. Do Consumers Buy GM Food? Final Report. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/biohealth/research/nutritional/consumerchoice

  • Purnhagen, K., E. Kok, G. Kleter, H. Schebesta, R. Visser, and J. Wesseler. 2018a. EU Court Casts New Plant Breeding Techniques into Regulatory Limbo. Nature Biotechnology 36 (9): 799–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018b. The European Union Court’s Advocate General’s Opinion and New Plant Breeding Techniques. Nature Biotechnology 36 (7): 573–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qaim, M. 2009. The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics 1: 665–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao, Q., M. Punt, and J. Wesseler. 2018. New Plant Breeding Techniques Under Food Security Pressure and Lobbying. Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 1324. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skevas, T., P. Fevereiro, and J. Wesseler. 2010. Coexistence Regulations & Agriculture Production: A Case Study of Five Bt Maize Producers in Portugal. Ecological Economics 69 (12): 2402–2408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, R., M. Blum, and J. Wesseler. 2015. EU Member States’ Voting for Authorizing Genetically Engineered Crops: A Regulatory Gridlock. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (4): 244–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen, J.F.M., and T. Vandemoortele. 2010. Policy Gridlock or Future Change? The Political Economy Dynamics of EU Biotechnology Regulation. AgBioforum 13: 291–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venus, T., D. Drabik, and J. Wesseler. 2018. The Role of a German Multi-Stakeholder Standard for Livestock Products Derived from Non-GMO Feed. Food Policy 78: 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesseler, J. 2014. Biotechnologies and Agrifood Strategies: Opportunities, Threats and Economic Implications. Bio-Based and Applied Economics 3 (3): 187–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesseler, J., S. Scatasta, and E. Nillesen. 2007. The Maximum Incremental Social Tolerable Irreversible Costs (MISTICs) and Other Benefits and Costs of Introducing Transgenic Maize in the EU-15. Pedobiologia 51: 261–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, J., D. Drabik, N. Heerink, and J. Wesseler. 2019. Getting an Imported GM Crop Approved in China. Trends in Biotechnology 37 (6): 566–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Justus Wesseler

  2. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes

Authors
  1. Justus Wesseler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justus Wesseler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Liesbeth Dries

  2. Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Wim Heijman

  3. Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Roel Jongeneel

  4. Law and Governance Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen

  5. Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Justus Wesseler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wesseler, J., Kalaitzandonakes, N. (2019). Present and Future EU GMO Policy. In: Dries, L., Heijman, W., Jongeneel, R., Purnhagen, K., Wesseler, J. (eds) EU Bioeconomy Economics and Policies: Volume II. Palgrave Advances in Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28642-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28642-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28641-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28642-2

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation