1 Introduction

Comparing how the transgenic plant innovation has been dealt with in the European Union (EU) vs. in the USA is of high interest in order to understand the possible perspective of genome editing in Europe.

While the transgenic plant technologies were co-invented in the early 80’s by laboratories in both Europe and the USA [1, 2], the EU was clearly the centre of the plant biotechnology backlash which started in the middle of the 90s [3]. Earlier, in 1990, the EU, through its 90/220/EEC Directive, has created a new judicial object called a ‘genetically-modified organism’ (GMO).Footnote 1 Although this Directive was replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC,Footnote 2 it retained what many consider as a scientific meaningless definition of a GMO [4]. A central element of the definition of a GMO according to the EU is that it is an “Organism in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally”. Such a concept has become highly damaging for public acceptance in the wake of the ‘mad cow’ crisis in Europe (when what was considered as an unnatural way of feeding cattle led to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, a disease potentially transmittable to humans). The temporal coincidence of the media coverage of this disease and the arrival on the market of the first GMO harvests provided anti-GMO activists the opportunity to spread fears about food derived from GMOs. As a political response, the above-mentioned new Directive was adopted in 2001. It states: “In accordance with the precautionary principle, the objective of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States and to protect human health and the environment”. In other words, in the view of the EU, GMOs are intrinsically different from traditionally bred organisms and are therefore more risky, thus justifying a precautionary approach.

In the USA, the Federal government established a formal biotechnology policy as early as 1986, known as the ‘Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology’. It has since been updated Footnote 3 but remains based on existing laws, not a law in itself, in contrast with the path taken by the EU. Although one may consider that this Coordinated Framework has limited the deployment of transgenic crops to some extent, it did not have an inhibiting effect as laws in the EU had. Activists also attempted to propagate fears in the USA, which eventually lead to Public Law 114–216 on GMO labelling in 2016. However, the latter had only minimal labelling requirements, in contrast to what occurred in the EU under the 2001 Directive.

The advent of gene editing techniques gave rise to the question whether or not such a type of mutagenesis should be subject to specific biosafety regulatory provisions. Many papers discussed the possible ‘natural’ occurrence of such ‘edited’ mutations [5]. It should also be noted that the 2001 GMO Directive lists ‘mutagenesis’ in “Techniques/methods of genetic modification yielding organisms to be excluded from the Directive, on the condition that they do not involve the use of recombinant nucleic acid molecules…”.

However, in July 2018 the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that “Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive” unless they “have a long safety record”.Footnote 4 This excludes gene editing, with an explicit reference to “the precautionary principle which that directive seeks to implement”. The CJEU reasoning was that gene editing is closer to transgenesis than to conventional mutagenesis (“since the direct modification of the genetic material of an organism through mutagenesis makes it possible to obtain the same effects as the introduction of a foreign gene into the organism (transgenesis) and those new techniques make it possible to produce genetically modified varieties at a rate out of all proportion to those resulting from the application of conventional methods of mutagenesis”).

This view again clearly differentiates the EU from the USA. In the latter country, simple mutations, including those obtained by gene editing are usually considered as not necessitating regulatory oversight [5].

The question arising from these considerations is why are there such fully opposed approaches in the EU vs. the USA for the same biotechnologies? To address this question, this chapter will attempt to highlight the underlying ideological views and proposes that the latter are linked to a broader historical background.

2 A Brief Look Back at the History of Europe During the Twentieth Century

Alongside undeniable progress (in civil rights, social conditions, medicine, etc.), Twentieth century Europe is characterized by two World Wars, with destruction at levels never seen before, and the mass crimes of two totalitarian states, including their respective concentration camps and genocides. Drawing lessons from the past, Europe has undertaken to avoid the repetition of such tragic events. One of the political instruments of this project was the European integration, which progressed from the Treaty of Rome in 1957 up to the current EU.Footnote 5

The aim of the 1957 treaty was “To work towards integration and economic growth, through trade” and had ‘specific goals’, amongst them to “Pool their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty”. The Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (in 2016) goes further in presenting its ‘values’.Footnote 6 Its Preamble states: “Recalling the historic importance of the ending of the division of the European continent and the need to create firm bases for the construction of the future Europe”, and “Confirming their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law”.

In other words, these values are now the ‘Big Principles’ on which the EU has been founded, in order to avoid the repetition of the disasters of the past. Significantly, “The main goal of the European Union is to defend these values in Europe and promote peace and the wellbeing of the citizens”.Footnote 7

3 ‘Big Principles’ Have Also Been Applied to Science and Technologies

Although the contributions of science and technologies to improving the human condition were considerable during the twentieth century, accidents and disasters did occur [6], with science being used to develop weapons of mass destruction. For the German-born philosopher Günther Anders and for others, the main events of the twentieth century were ‘Auschwitz’ and ‘Hiroshima’ [7].

The ideology on which the EU is founded, namely a political dream of ‘no tragedy’ has also encouraged an utopia of ‘no technological risk’, illustrated by the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Together with what can be seen as a Principle of Participation (of ‘stakeholders’, ‘citizens’…), which will not be developed here (see below and for more details see [8]), these represent new ‘Big Principles’ which were designed to avoid repetition of accidents caused by technologies.

In concrete terms, this precautionary ideology inspired the drafting of the GMO Directives (the General Principles of the 2001 Directive state: “In accordance with the precautionary principle, the following general principles should be followed… [for risk assessment]”). Gene editing is a new biotechnology which was not anticipated in these Directives, thus requiring an ex-post legal interpretation. In other words, the letter of the Directive being unclear, the CJEU (see above) reasoned within the spirit of these Directives, namely applying the Precautionary Principle.

4 Postmodernism as a Philosophical Background

If one wishes to analyse further what has been described above in a philosophical context, the concept of postmodernism seems relevant, despite the fact that it is a polysemic term (it is also used in art, for example). Here, postmodernism refers to a type of thought that is largely a ‘deconstruction’ of the general Enlightenment philosophical viewpoints and values. The latter became dominant in the Western world progressively from the eighteenth century to the mid twentieth century. Regarding postmodernism, one can cite two French philosophers; Emmanuel Lévinas who criticized the Enlightenment philosophy as a “totalizing” system of thought and Jean-François Lyotard who defined postmodernism as the rejection of (western) “metanarratives” of human biological, historical, and social development. More generally, the modern ‘universalist’ thoughts have been accused to impose western conformity on other perspectives, thereby oppressing them, which is supposed to justify the ‘deconstruction’ of the European Enlightenment (for more details see [9]). The term ‘deconstruction’ is actually a translation of the concept of “Abbau” developed by German philosopher Martin Heidegger [10].

In a more recent phase, the concepts of ‘deconstruction’ and postmodernism moved from what was an intellectual debate to a form of more general rejection of the Western past. Such thoughts were largely fed by the tragic events mentioned above, to which one may add for some countries; colonialism, slavery and, more generally, discriminations of any type. From the 80’s onwards, postmodernism insidiously became the dominant ideology of the European ‘Elites’. It is largely influenced by what can be termed ‘Western Guilt’ [11], which can manifest itself in various forms, from repentance to self-hatred. Its political project is a form of new redeemed society.

Such a redeemed society would not only be a ‘no tragedy’ one, but can also be extended to a ‘post-history’ one in the postmodern dream. It is worth mentioning here the book by the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama, entitled The End of History and the Last Man. Interestingly, its author commented the following: “I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU’s attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a ‘post-historical’ world than the Americans’ continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military” [12].

This is not to say that postmodern thoughts have not reached the USA; they are simply different (the past inspiring guilt and rejection is rather linked to racial issues in that country). It has provided the intellectual background of ‘identity politics’. The broad implications of this politics will not be discussed here, only its implication for science.

5 Postmodernism Effects on Science

Regarding science, ‘identity politics’ clash with Enlightenment epistemology which values open debates and merit in science. In contrast, postmodern views justify ‘affirmative action’ in favour of minorities and more generally politicization of science. This has led to an outcry from some scientists [13].

The general ideas of postmodernism (‘deconstruction’ of the Western past) have been adopted by various sociological fields, leading to the creation of new ‘studies’, such as ‘cultural studies’, ‘gender studies’, ‘science and technology studies’ (STSs), etc. [14].

While the aim of science within modern framing is to determine what is true and what is false, within the STSs field some deconstructionist thinkers questioned the validity of claims of scientific truth and criticized scientific method. In their opinion, scientific objectivity is reduced to ‘claims’ that are the expression of one community (the scientists) which shares preconceptions. Thus, science is simply one ‘construct’ of reality amongst many others (for more details, taken from the GMO case, see [15]). In such a relativist framing, politically-constructed claims by anti-GMO activists should have the same validity as science-based risk assessment of GMOs. For example, how it permeated the European Parliament was discussed [15].

Such postmodern views encourage a ‘participative’ approach in science, which draws scientists into the political arena, with no observed benefits for science and risk assessment as far as the GMO dispute is concerned [16]. Regarding interactions between science and society, the move from modernism to postmodernist can be summarized by a shift from the concept that ‘the public (in its own interest) should rely on the judgments of expert scientists’ to a reverse one, namely that ‘scientists should listen to society’. In addition, concepts of ‘justice’, ‘fairness’, ‘democratic deliberation’, etc., will compete with the truth seeking approach of science (for an example taken in the USA, namely a report on ‘gene drive’ by the National Academy of Science, see [17]).

In summary, the transgenic technology has been affected by postmodernism in different manners: the Precautionary approach and cognitive relativism, which could not be attenuated due to the simultaneous ‘deconstruction’ of certain modern values, such as distinguishing truth and falseness, and trust in scientific progress.

6 Fundamental Differences Between USA and Europe Regarding the Use of Technology

Although the USA was involved in both World Wars experiencing great human loss, mass devastation and the above-mentioned tragedies actually occurred in Europe, not in the USA. These facts provide a likely historical explanation for the dream of ‘no tragedy’ in Europe but not in the USA (the outcomes in other countries such as Japan or Russia will not be considered here). In addition, the USA became the leading power in the world. To maintain this status, their authorities will always privilege their national interest and hence their industries [18].

In parallel, the former European ‘imperialist’ powers disappeared and the raison d’être of the EU was not to recreate a new bellicose empire, but was just the opposite. The EU’s ambition is limited to a soft power which attempts to export its well-thinking norms and ‘values’ to other regions of the world, when the large size of its market allows it to do so (for discussion on the EU soft power, see resource notes.Footnote 8,Footnote 9,Footnote 10,Footnote 11 It also export its fears, as the GMO case has shown.

Based on good intentions and decked with its moral values, the EU has given a greater importance to consumers and the environment than to ‘realpolitik’ (for references on consumer protection and environmental policies in the EU, see notes).Footnote 12,Footnote 13,Footnote 14,Footnote 15 These EU priorities justify its reasoning on the necessity of regulation that others judge excessive (e.g. on biotechnologies).

However, one can note that the EU is embracing ‘realpolitik’ when it can hardly do otherwise. For example, it imports more than 20 million tons of GM soybeans per year to feed part of its livestock, thus supporting the production of transgenic plants in South America, while European farmers cannot do so because of the Precautionary Principle.

Besides the influences of postmodernism, the ban on GMO cultivation was also the product of demagogy and short-term electoral alliances of certain governments in Europe, which will not be discussed here (for Germany, see [19]; for France, see [20, 21]). However, the fact that such political manoeuvres could have the adhesion of so many people is linked to the dissemination of the postmodern ideology beyond the ‘Elites’.

7 The Implication for ‘Poor’ Countries

The rejection of GMO cultivation by some ‘developing’ countries, such as some African countries which could benefit from plant biotechnology, can have different causes, from a concern of their leaders to preserve export opportunities to the EU, to the importation of European health fears by these countries. This situation should not be viewed as the adoption of ‘postmodernism’ by these countries, since the latter type of thought is inseparable from the ‘Western Guilt’. It seems rather to be the consequence of a ‘modern’ type of reasoning (although not science-based), such as: ‘why should we, the poor, adopt a technology that is rejected by the rich’.

8 The EU Commission Report on Gene Editing as an Example of Postmodern Framing

On 29th April 2021, the European Commission published a report regarding the status of what is called ‘New Genomic Techniques’ (NGTs, i.e. gene editing) under Union law.Footnote 16 This report includes excellent overviews of research and innovation, as well as of risk assessment in this field.

Interestingly, it also provides an illustration of the postmodern views dominant in the EU. This report appears rather positive about the potential benefits of the gene editing technology, but is not considered an asset for some kind of European power (industrial, agricultural…). Instead, gene editing is viewed as a potential contributor to its own pre-set goals: “Several of the plant products obtained from NGTs have the potential to contribute to the objectives of the EU’s Green Deal and in particular to the ‘farm to fork’ and biodiversity strategies and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs) for a more resilient and sustainable agri-food system”. Similarly, when benefits for farmers are mentioned, such as “…plants more resistant to diseases…”, it is in a context “of reduced use of agricultural inputs (including plant protection products)“, i.e. more constrains imposed on farmers by the EU policy.

The following sentence also illustrates the framing of the Commission: “The Communication on the ‘farm to fork’ strategy stated that new innovative techniques, including biotechnology and the development of bio-based products, may play a role in increasing sustainability, provided they are safe for consumers and the environment while bringing benefits for society as a whole”. One can wonder whether a technology can be proven “safe” and whether any technology in its initial phase has ever brought “benefits for society as a whole”…

The following sentence illustrates that the Precautionary Principle is not viewed as a guiding tool for risk assessment, but as an aim in itself: “Directives 2001/18/EC and 2009/41/EC [on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms] share very similar aims (protection of health and the environment, application of the precautionary principle)”. The report does not mention that NGTs could be important for ‘European power’, which as discussed above is not part of the EU ideology.

In Sect. 4.6.2, the report summarizes the view of “Stakeholders that see benefit in NGTs” and, in Sect. 4.6.3, those of “Stakeholders that do not see benefits in NGTs”. It concludes that “Stakeholders are divided on the need to maintain the current legislation and reinforce its implementation, or to adapt it to scientific and technological progress and the level of risk of NGT products.” In a somewhat utopic view, the report states that “…efforts should be made to reconcile opposing views in order to find common ground to address the issues identified in this study”.

In a relativist (postmodern) framing (but it could simply be a political tactic), the report does not attempt do separate what is true and what is false. It simply wishes that “Finally, more effort should be made to inform and engage with the public on NGTs and assess their views”.

Recently, a document from the European Commission proposes new approaches to regulating NGT plants. This proposal states that “the Union GMO legislation is not fit for the purpose of regulating the deliberate release of plants obtained by certain NGTs”.Footnote 17 In line with the 2021 report by the Commission, gene editing is viewed as “a possible tool to increase sustainability”, that is to say its own pre-set well-thinking goals. However, a certain recognition of the reality of the world can now be observed: “the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine have also revealed the EU’s external dependencies”. It also mentions that “The Union risks being excluded to a significant extent from the technological developments and economic, social and environmental benefits that these new technologies can potentially generate”. In addition, regarding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), SDG9 (industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) is now specifically mentioned. Furthermore, the general objectives of this draft include to “enhance the competitiveness of the EU agri-food sector”, while keeping (as expected with regard to the above-mentioned domination of a postmodern framing in the EU) the reference to the Precautionary Principle, the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies. Whether these economic objectives will clash with sustainability objectives remains to be seen.

9 Conclusions and Perspectives

As discussed previously, “The EU has thus given the absolute priority to consumers and perceived environmental care, based on good intentions and moral values, but to do so it has indulged itself in excessive regulations for ideological reasons” [8].

In this context, it is unlikely that the EU will take into account scientific facts presented in a ‘modern’ framing of truth. This implies that scientists, in future narratives, should also put forward ‘values’ not merely scientific facts, bearing in mind that in the foreseeable future modifying the EU directives will not be possible if this contradicts the spirit of the European ‘Big Principles’ and primarily the Precautionary Principle.