Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Precautionary Principle in EU Regulation of GMOs: Socio-Economic Considerations and Ethical Implications of Biotechnology

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Law is often linked to ethics and morality. Regulations of genetically modified organisms ensue from a discussion on how well the law is composed to accommodate ethical considerations. The precautionary principle and biotechnology have undeniable moral connotations. Besides, the principle has socio-economic implications. The application of the precautionary principle in plant breeding should be legally justified on the basis of the best available evidence. On the other hand, scientific information cannot provide all the necessary information on which a risk management decision should be based. This article addresses the issue of gap between science, ethics, and socio-economic considerations related to the cultivation and authorisation of GM crops.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘Other legitimate factors relevant to the matter into consideration’ are referred to in Article 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, and in Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

  2. The Seeds of Disaster, an article by the Prince of Wales. (1998). The Daily Telegraph. Online at http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/article-the-prince-of-wales-titled-the-seeds-of-disaster-the-daily-telegraph.

  3. The Butler Act, for instance, was a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of the evolution theory in all the universities and all other public schools of Tennessee which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State. See Webb (2012, p. 150).

References

  • Ambrus, M. (2012). The precautionary principle and a fair allocation of the burden of proof in international environmental law. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law,21, 259–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arber, W. (2009). The impact of science and technology on the civilization. Biotechnology Advances,27(6), 940–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2016). The substantive law of the EU, the four freedoms (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binimelis, R. (2008). Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: is an individual choice possible? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,21(5), 437–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobo, J. A. (2007). The role of international agreements in achieving food security: How many lawyers does it take to feed a village? Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law,40(4), 937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, N. J. (2013). Fundamental rights and the EU internal market: Just how fundamental are the EU treaty freedoms? A normative enquiry based on john rawls’ political philosophy. Utrecht Law Review,9(1), 148–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowring, F. (2003). Manufacturing scarcity: Food biotechnology and the life sciences industry. Capital & Class,27(1), 107–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. (1992). Rational science, irrational reality: A congressional perspective on basic research and society. Science,258(5080), 200–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Búrca, G. (1996). The quest for legitimacy in the European Union. Modern Law Review,59(3), 349–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantley, M. (2012). European attitudes on the regulation of modern biotechnology and their consequences. GM Crops & Food,3(1), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2000). 2226 UNTS 208 (entered into force 11 September 2003).

  • Carter, C., Moschini, G., & Sheldon, I. M. (2011). Genetically modified food and global welfare (Frontiers of economics and globalization 10). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D., & Braunack-Mayer, A. (2011). The appeal to nature implicit in certain restrictions on public funding for assisted reproductive technology. Bioethics,25(8), 463–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case C-183/95 Affish v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees, ECLI:EU:C:1997:373.

  • Case C-165/08 Commission v Poland, ECLI:EU:C:2009:473.

  • Case C-282/15 Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2017:26.

  • Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2002:209.

  • Case T-70/99 R Alpharma v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2002:210.

  • Case T-392/02 R Solvay Pharmaceuticals v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2003:277.

  • Case T-475/07 Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:445.

  • Case T-257/07 R France v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:444, Order of the Court of First Instance (judge hearing the application for interim measures) of 28 September 2007.

  • Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law: Cases and materials (2nd ed., pp. 326–327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. (2000). Vexing nature? On the ethical case against agricultural biotechnology. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992) 1760 UNTS 79, 31 ILM 818 (entered into force 29 December 1993).

  • Cooney, R. (2005). From promise to practicalities: the precautionary principle in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. In R. Cooney & B. Dickson (Eds.), Biodiversity & the precautionary principle (pp. 3–17). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1875). The variation of animals and plants under domestication (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sadeleer, N. (2014). EU environmental law and the internal market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, B. (2007). What happens when the gene gets out of the bottle?: The necessity of an intent element for infringement of patents claiming genetically modified organisms. UMKC Law Review,76, 553–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1).

  • Dworkin, R. (2013). Taking rights seriously. London: Bloomsbury Academics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1950). The meaning of relativity (4 edition with further appendix edition). London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D. (2001). Bridging the trade-environment divide. Journal of Economic Perspectives,15(3), 353–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle/*COM/2000/0001 final*/, 8.

  • Falck-Zepeda, J. B., & Zambrano, P. (2011). Socio-economic considerations in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: The cartagena protocol and national biosafety frameworks (Report). The Review of Policy Research,28(2), 171–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, D. (1999). GM crops in the cross hairs. Science,286(5445), 1662–1666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology,18(9), 935–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, G. (2010). The order of public reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollier, C., & Treich, N. (2003). Decision-making under scientific uncertainty: The economics of the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,27(1), 77–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandjean, P. (2004). Implications of the precautionary principle for primary prevention and research. Annual Review of Public Health,25, 199–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grumet, R. (2012). Production of genetically engineered crops, relationship to conventional plant breeding, and implications for safety assessment. In R. Grumet, J. F. Hancock, K. M. Maredia, & C. Weebadde (Eds.), Environmental safety of genetically engineered crops. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2006). Does culture affect economic outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives,20(2), 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. (2013). The ethics of risk. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, F., & Schiemann, J. (2014). Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: Opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. Plant Journal,78(5), 742–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2008). Representation and re-presentation in litigation science. Environmental Health Perspectives,116(1), 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and public reason. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00, T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00 Artegodan and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2002:283.

  • Kaebnick, G. (2011). The ideal of nature, debates about biotechnology and the environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, N. (2009). Hybrid, the history and science of plant breeding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirshenbaum, S. (2017). Embracing the unqualified opinion. Science,356(6334), 144–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovács, J. (2010). The transformation of (bio)ethics expertise in a world of ethical pluralism. Journal of Medical Ethics,36(12), 767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, M. (2017). There’s nothing quasi about quasi-realism: moral realism as a moral doctrine. The Journal of Ethics,21(2), 185–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriebel, D., et al. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives,109(9), 871–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, S. (2017). Precautionary federalism and the sharing economy. Emory Law Journal,66(2), 333–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, B. (2015). Conceiving the rationale for international climate law. Climatic Change,130(3), 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meldolesi, A. (2011). Vatican panel backs GMOs. Nature Biotechnology,29(1), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin, J., & Orsini, A. (2015). Essential concepts of global environmental governance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortensen, S. T. (2010). Gant: restoring balance to the fourth amendment’s search-incident-to-a-valid-arrest exception. Appalachian Journal of Law,9, 259–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omarova, S. (2012). Bankers, bureaucrats, and guardians: Toward tripartism in financial services regulation. Journal of Corporation Law,37(3), 621–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osimani, B. (2013). The precautionary principle in the pharmaceutical domain: A philosophical enquiry into probabilistic reasoning and risk aversion. Health, Risk & Society,15(2), 123–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parler, B. (2016). The underlying moral logic of Paul’s appeal to nature in Corinthians 11:14. Calvin Theological Journal,51(1), 112–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peczenik, A. (2001). A theory of legal doctrine. Ratio Juris,14(1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel, J. (2010). Science and risk regulation in international law: The role of science, uncertainty and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penders, B., & Nelis, A. (2011). Credibility engineering in the food industry: Linking science, regulation, and marketing in a corporate context. Science in Context,24(4), 487–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontifical Academy of Science. (2010). Transgenic plants for food security in the context of development. New Biotechnology,27(5), 645–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1974). The logic of scientific discovery (7th ed.). London: Routledge. (translated from German).

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review,9(4), 120–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 01.02.2002).

  • Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, 1–23).

  • Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UNDoc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I); 31 ILM 874 (1992).

  • Samuelson, P. (1948). International trade and the equalisation of factor prices. The Economic Journal,58(230), 163–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal,5(5), 889–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O. (2012). Beyond cultural distance: Switching to a friction lens in the study of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies,43(1), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (2000). ‘Precautionary principle’ is not protectionist, Brussels insists. Financial Times, 12.

  • Smyth, S., Phillips, P., & Kerr, W. (2009). Global governance quandaries regarding transformative technologies for bioproducts, crops, and foods. Journal of World Trade,43(6), 1299–1323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tauber, A. (1999). Is biology a political science? BioScience,49(6), 479–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Bible, King James version.

  • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2016), OJ C 202 (2016).

  • Vogel, S. (2011). Why “Nature” has no place in environmental philosophy. In G. Kaebnick (Ed.), The ideal of nature: Debates about biotechnology and the environment (pp. 84–97). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, S. (2015). Thinking like a mall, environmental philosophy after the end of nature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review,72(3), 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J., & Lister, N. E. (2008). The ecosystem approach, complexity, uncertainty, and managing for sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, G. E. (2012). The Tennessee academy of science and the repeal of the Butler act. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science,87(4), 150–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside, K. (2006). Precautionary politics, principle and practice in confronting environmental risk. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J. B. (2013). The real pattern of precaution. In J. Hammit, M. Rogers, & P. Sand (Eds.), The reality of precaution, comparing risk regulation in the United States and Europe. St. Louis: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kiev, Ukraine

    Artem Anyshchenko

Authors
  1. Artem Anyshchenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anyshchenko, A. The Precautionary Principle in EU Regulation of GMOs: Socio-Economic Considerations and Ethical Implications of Biotechnology. J Agric Environ Ethics 32, 855–872 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09802-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09802-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation