Advertisement

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

  • Artem Anyshchenko
Articles
  • 116 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Bioethics Socio-economic considerations Precaution Genetically modified organisms 

Notes

References

  1. 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
  2. Arber, W. (2009). The impact of science and technology on the civilization. Biotechnology Advances,27(6), 940–944.Google Scholar
  3. Barnard, C. (2016). The substantive law of the EU, the four freedoms (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Bowring, F. (2003). Manufacturing scarcity: Food biotechnology and the life sciences industry. Capital & Class,27(1), 107–144.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, G. (1992). Rational science, irrational reality: A congressional perspective on basic research and society. Science,258(5080), 200–201.Google Scholar
  9. Búrca, G. (1996). The quest for legitimacy in the European Union. Modern Law Review,59(3), 349–376.Google Scholar
  10. Cantley, M. (2012). European attitudes on the regulation of modern biotechnology and their consequences. GM Crops & Food,3(1), 40–47.Google Scholar
  11. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2000). 2226 UNTS 208 (entered into force 11 September 2003).Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Case C-183/95 Affish v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees, ECLI:EU:C:1997:373.Google Scholar
  15. Case C-165/08 Commission v Poland, ECLI:EU:C:2009:473.Google Scholar
  16. Case C-282/15 Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ECLI:EU:C:2017:26.Google Scholar
  17. Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2002:209.Google Scholar
  18. Case T-70/99 R Alpharma v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2002:210.Google Scholar
  19. Case T-392/02 R Solvay Pharmaceuticals v Council, ECLI:EU:T:2003:277.Google Scholar
  20. Case T-475/07 Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2011:445.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Chalmers, D., Davies, G., & Monti, G. (2010). European Union law: Cases and materials (2nd ed., pp. 326–327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Comstock, G. (2000). Vexing nature? On the ethical case against agricultural biotechnology. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992) 1760 UNTS 79, 31 ILM 818 (entered into force 29 December 1993).Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Darwin, C. (1875). The variation of animals and plants under domestication (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. De Sadeleer, N. (2014). EU environmental law and the internal market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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).Google Scholar
  30. Dworkin, R. (2013). Taking rights seriously. London: Bloomsbury Academics.Google Scholar
  31. Einstein, A. (1950). The meaning of relativity (4 edition with further appendix edition). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  32. Esty, D. (2001). Bridging the trade-environment divide. Journal of Economic Perspectives,15(3), 353–377.Google Scholar
  33. European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle/*COM/2000/0001 final*/, 8.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Ferber, D. (1999). GM crops in the cross hairs. Science,286(5445), 1662–1666.Google Scholar
  36. Gaskell, G., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology,18(9), 935–938.Google Scholar
  37. Gaus, G. (2010). The order of public reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Grandjean, P. (2004). Implications of the precautionary principle for primary prevention and research. Annual Review of Public Health,25, 199–223.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2006). Does culture affect economic outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives,20(2), 23–48.Google Scholar
  42. Hansson, S. (2013). The ethics of risk. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Jasanoff, S. (2008). Representation and re-presentation in litigation science. Environmental Health Perspectives,116(1), 123–129.Google Scholar
  46. Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and public reason. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Kaebnick, G. (2011). The ideal of nature, debates about biotechnology and the environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kingsbury, N. (2009). Hybrid, the history and science of plant breeding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kirshenbaum, S. (2017). Embracing the unqualified opinion. Science,356(6334), 144–145.Google Scholar
  51. Kovács, J. (2010). The transformation of (bio)ethics expertise in a world of ethical pluralism. Journal of Medical Ethics,36(12), 767.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Kriebel, D., et al. (2001). The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives,109(9), 871–876.Google Scholar
  54. Light, S. (2017). Precautionary federalism and the sharing economy. Emory Law Journal,66(2), 333–394.Google Scholar
  55. Mayer, B. (2015). Conceiving the rationale for international climate law. Climatic Change,130(3), 371–382.Google Scholar
  56. Meldolesi, A. (2011). Vatican panel backs GMOs. Nature Biotechnology,29(1), 11.Google Scholar
  57. Morin, J., & Orsini, A. (2015). Essential concepts of global environmental governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Omarova, S. (2012). Bankers, bureaucrats, and guardians: Toward tripartism in financial services regulation. Journal of Corporation Law,37(3), 621–674.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Peczenik, A. (2001). A theory of legal doctrine. Ratio Juris,14(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  63. Peel, J. (2010). Science and risk regulation in international law: The role of science, uncertainty and values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Pontifical Academy of Science. (2010). Transgenic plants for food security in the context of development. New Biotechnology,27(5), 645–659.Google Scholar
  66. Popper, K. (1974). The logic of scientific discovery (7th ed.). London: Routledge. (translated from German).Google Scholar
  67. Porter, M., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review,9(4), 120–134.Google Scholar
  68. 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).Google Scholar
  69. 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).Google Scholar
  70. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UNDoc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I); 31 ILM 874 (1992).Google Scholar
  71. Samuelson, P. (1948). International trade and the equalisation of factor prices. The Economic Journal,58(230), 163–184.Google Scholar
  72. Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal,5(5), 889–907.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Smith, M. (2000). ‘Precautionary principle’ is not protectionist, Brussels insists. Financial Times, 12.Google Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Sunstein, C. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tauber, A. (1999). Is biology a political science? BioScience,49(6), 479–486.Google Scholar
  78. The Bible, King James version.Google Scholar
  79. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2016), OJ C 202 (2016).Google Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Vogel, S. (2015). Thinking like a mall, environmental philosophy after the end of nature. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review,72(3), 46.Google Scholar
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. Whiteside, K. (2006). Precautionary politics, principle and practice in confronting environmental risk. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  86. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KievUkraine

Personalised recommendations