Are current EU policies on GMOs justified?

Abstract

The European Court of Justice’s recent ruling that the new techniques for crop development are to be considered as genetically modified organisms under the European Union’s regulations exacerbates the need for a critical evaluation of those regulations. The paper analyzes the regulation from the perspective of moral and political philosophy. It considers whether influential arguments for restrictions of genetically modified organisms provide cogent justifications for the policies that are in place, in particular a pre-release authorization requirement, mandatory labelling, and de facto bans (in the form of withholding or opting out of authorizations). It is argued that arguments pertaining to risk can justify some form of pre-release authorization scheme, although not necessarily the current one, but that neither de facto bans nor mandatory labelling can be justified by reference to common arguments concerning naturalness, agricultural policy (in particular the promotion of organic farming), socio-economic effects, or consumers’ right to choose.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    See https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2018_11_gcsa_statement_gene_editing_2.pdf.

  2. 2.

    Golden Rice is modified to combat Vitamin A deficiency. It has been heavily criticized by some anti-GMO groups, partly for reasons relating to the so-called technological fix objection which we discuss in the section “Agricultural policy” below. For overviews of the controversies surrounding Golden Rice, see e.g. https://grist.org/food/golden-rice-fools-gold-or-golden-opportunity/ and https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/13/golden-rice-gmo-crop-greenpeace-hates-and-humanitarians-love/.

  3. 3.

    It also requires precise relative values of different possible outcomes, and that all outcomes can be traded off against each other: For example, it requires that there is some precise (but possibly very large) amount of money that is worth exactly as much as a human life.

  4. 4.

    For example, both the 2001 Directive and the 2015 Amendment mention the precautionary principle as a basis for GMO policy.

  5. 5.

    In practice, this would require systematically withholding or opting out of authorizations of each GMO on an individual basis.

  6. 6.

    This is, of course, contestable, e.g. by those who assign very great value to the environment. However, if GMOs are likely to have environmental benefit—i.e., if the use of Bt varieties is just somewhat likely to have considerable environmental benefits—then the laxity of the knowledge condition should be sufficient, since the possible benefits of using Bt varieties are of the very same kind as the possible harms.

  7. 7.

    Two caveats should be noted: First, opt-outs concern individual GMOs, not GMOs generally, and second, the 2015 Amendment only covers cultivation, not use for food and feed. We ignore these two caveats below, since they do not influence the principled points, and since both may de facto or in the future not be true: At least some MS’s will likely opt out of whatever GMOs might be authorized for the foreseeable future, and the EC may succeed in getting legislation similar to the 2015 Amendment enacted that covers food and feed.

  8. 8.

    It is debatable whether the EUs definition of a GMO rationalizes the distinctions between organisms that are covered and those that are not, since most of the kinds of alterations that are covered do occur naturally. For example, DNA transfer via agrobacterium—the GM technique par excellence—occurs naturally, and has, for example, occurred in the evolutionary history of the sweet potato (Kyndt et al. 2015; see also SAM 2018).

  9. 9.

    Michael Palmgren, in conversation.

  10. 10.

    This goes for the most widely discussed statements of these theories. Nonsentientist versions can be found within each of these four types of theory.

  11. 11.

    Since the putative health benefits also (according to the proponents of a health-based pro-organic argument) set organic food apart from conventional crops, the relevant health effects are such that they would not be covered by EFSA safety assessment. They would, for example, be associated with lower pesticide residue intake.

  12. 12.

    A recent analysis found that organic farming can feed the world without increasing land use, but only if combined with (1) a very large reduction in food waste, and (2) an elimination of all use of land that could be used for producing (plant-based) foods for the production of livestock (Muller et al. 2017). Neither of these are likely to be realized.

  13. 13.

    See OSGATA v. Monsanto, available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1298.Opinion.6-6-2013.1.pdf.

References

  1. Agar N (1997) Biocentrism and the concept of life. Ethics 108(2):147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersen MM, Landes X, Xiang W, Anyshchenko A, Falhof J, Østerberg JT, Olsen LI, Edenbrandt AK, Vedel SE, Thorsen BJ, Sandøe P, Gamborg C, Kappel K, Palmgren MG (2015) Feasibility of new breeding techniques for organic farming. Trends Plant Sci 20(7):426–434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benbrook CM (2016) Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ Sci Eur 28(3):1–15

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Blancke S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M (2015) Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends Plant Sci 20(7):414–418

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bloom P (2011) How pleasure works: why we like what we like. Vintage, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brookes G (2014) Weed control changes and genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops in the USA 1996–2012. GM Crops Food 5(4):321–332

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2016) Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2014. GM Crops Food 7(1):38–77

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops Food 8(2):117–147

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Callicott JB (1980) Animal liberation: a triangular affair. Environ Ethics 2(4):311–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. EFSA (2010) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 8(11):1–111

    Google Scholar 

  11. Elliott R (1982) Faking nature. Inquiry 25:81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eurobarometer (2010) Special Eurobarometer 341: biotechnology. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  13. European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle (European Union, 2000). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0001&from=EN

  14. Finger R, El Benni N, Kaphengst T, Evans C, Herbert S, Lehmann B, Morse S, Stupak N (2011) A meta analysis on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops. Sustainability 3(5):743–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gardiner SM (2006) A core precautionary principle. J Polit Philos 14(1):33–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Geelhoed M (2016) Divided in diversity: reforming the EU’s GMO regime. Camb Yearb Eur Legal Stud 18:20–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goodpaster KE (1976) On being morally considerable. J Philos 75(6):208–325

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hartzell-Nichols L (2012) Precaution and solar radiation management. Ethics Policy Environ 15(2):158–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayenhjelm M, Wolff J (2011) The moral problem of risk imposition. Eur J Philos 20(S1):E26–E51

    Google Scholar 

  20. Holtug N (2001) On the value of coming into existence. J Ethics 5(4):361–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Katz E (1992) The big lie: human restoration of nature. Res Philos Technol 12:231–241

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kniss AR (2017) Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use. Nat Commun 8(14865):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kok EJ, Keijer J, Kleter GA, Kuiper HA (2008) Comparative safety assessment of plant-derived foods. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50(1):98–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kouser S, Qaim M (2011) Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: a panel data analysis. Ecol Econ 70(11):2105–2113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kyndt T, Quispe D, Zhai H, Jarret R, Ghislain M, Liu Q, Gheysen G, Kreuze JF (2015) The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: an example of a naturally transgenic food crop. PNAS 112(18):5644–5849

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee K (1999) The natural and the artefactual. Lexington Books, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lenman J (2008) Contractualism and risk imposition. Polit Philos Econ 7(1):99–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leopold A (1949) A Sand County Almanac—And sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mannion AM, Morse S (2012) Biotechnology in agriculture: agronomic and environmental considerations and reflections based on 15 years of GM crops. Prog Phys Geogr 36(6):747–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mendelsohn M, Kough J, Vaituzis Z, Mattews K (2003) Are Bt crops safe? Nat Biotechnol 21(9):1003–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mielby H, Sandøe P, Lassen J (2013) Multiple aspects of unnaturalness: are cisgenic crops perceived as being more natural and more acceptable than transgenic crops? Agric Hum Values 30(3):471–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Muller A et al (2017) Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat Commun 8(1290):1–13

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Næss A (2005) The deep ecology movement: some philosophical aspects. In: Naess A (ed) The selected works of Arne Naess, vol X: deep ecology of wisdom. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  34. National Academies of Sciences (2016) Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. National Academies Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK (1996) Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N Engl J Med 334:688–692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology: concepts and principles. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  37. Palmgren MG, Edenbrandt AK, Vedel SE, Andersen MM, Landes X, Østerberg JT, Falhof J, Olsen LI, Christensen SB, Sandøe P, Gamborg C, Kappel K, Thorsen BJ, Pagh P (2015) Are we ready for back-to-nature crop breeding? Trends Plant Sci 20(3):155–164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pellegrino E, Bedini S, Nuti M, Ercoli L (2018) Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data. Sci Rep 8(3113):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  40. Qaim M (2009) The economics of genetically modified crops. Ann Rev Resour Econ 1(1):665–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Randall A (2011) Risk and precaution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA (2013) Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS One 8(6):66428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Royal Society (2009) Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z, Neuhaus R, Surillo D, Swerdlin A, Wood K (2004) Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Salas Ferrer B (2016) The European Commission’s GMO Opt-out for Member States: a WTO perspective. Eur J Risk Regul 7(1):187–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. SAM (2017) New Techniques in agricultural biotechnology, Explanatory Note, European Union

  47. SAM (2018) A scientific perspective on the regulatory status of products derived from gene editing and the implications for the GMO directive. Statement by the Group of Scientific Advisors, European Union (2018)

  48. Sandler R (2007) Character and environment: a virtue oriented approach to environmental ethics. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Scanlon TM (1998) What we owe to each other. Harvard Belknap Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  50. Siipi H (2008) Dimensions of unnaturalness. Ethics Environ 13(1):71–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Steel D (2014) Philosophy and the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  52. Szántó V (2018) Essentialism, vitalism, and the GMO debate. Philos Technol 31(2):189–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tagliabue G (2017) The EU legislation on “GMOs” between nonsense and protectionism: an ongoing Schumpeterian chain of public choices. GM Crops Food 8:57–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Taheri F, Azadi H, D’Haese M (2017) A world without hunger: organic or GM crops? Sustainability 9(4):580–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Taylor PW (2011) Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics, 25th anniversary edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C (2005) Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45(1):47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Thompson P (2003) Unnatural farming and the debate over genetic manipulation. In: Gehring VV (ed) Genetic prospects: essays on biotechnology, ethics, and public policy. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  58. Trouwborst A (2006) Precautionary rights and duties of states. Martinus Niejhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  59. Verhoog H (2007) Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering. NJAS 54(4):387–399

    Google Scholar 

  60. Verhoog H, Matze M, Lammerts Van Bueren E, Baars T (2003) The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. J Agric Environ Ethics 16(1):29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Weimer M, Pisani G (2014) The EU adventures of ‘Herculex’: report on the EU authorization of genetically modified maize 1507. Eur J Risk Res 5(2):208–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Practical Philosophy Research Group at the University of Copenhagen for several discussions of earlier drafts of the paper. We would especially like to thank Xavier Landes for significant input earlier in the process, and Bjørn Hallsson for detailed comments. Funding was provided by Novo Nordisk Fonden (Grand No. NNF17SA0031368) and Københavns Universitet (UCPH Excellence Program for Interdisciplinary Research).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas T. Christiansen.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christiansen, A.T., Andersen, M.M. & Kappel, K. Are current EU policies on GMOs justified?. Transgenic Res 28, 267–286 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-019-00120-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • GMO
  • Policy
  • Risk
  • Natural
  • Organic
  • Labelling
  • Authorization
  • Opt-out