Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Paul B. Thompson, David M. Kaplan

EU Regulatory Conflicts over GM Food: Lessons for the Future

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_359-2

Synonyms

Introduction

Since the 1980s agricultural biotechnology has been promoted as a symbol of European progress and political-economic integration. Policy language has focused on “modern biotechnology,” encompassing various techniques, yet policy measures have favored genetic modification techniques and their products. According to proponents, agbiotech provides a clean technology for enhancing eco-efficient agro-production. By the late 1990s, however, this technological trajectory was stigmatized as suspect. It was being called “GM food,” or OGM in Romance languages or Gen-Müll (garbage) in German. The trajectory became negatively associated with factory farming, its hazards, and unsustainable agriculture. GM products have generally faced commercial and/or regulatory blockages to market access in Europe.

In the 1990s controversy over agbiotech in the European Union (EU), proponents criticized opponents for unfairly targeting or blaming a benign...

Keywords

European Union European Union Member State Economic Competitiveness Democratic Accountability Objective Imperative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Barry, A. (2001). Political machines: Governing a technological society. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  2. CEC. (1993). Growth, competitiveness and employment: The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  3. Cerny, P. G. (1999). Reconstructing the political in a globalizing world: States, institutions, actors and governance. In F. Buelens (Ed.), Globalization and the Nation-State (pp. 89–137). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. EC. (2001). European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 106, 1–38.Google Scholar
  5. EC. (2003a). Regulation 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official Journal of the European Union, L 268, 1–23.Google Scholar
  6. EC. (2003b). Regulation 1830/2003 of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of GMOs and traceability of food and feed produced from GMOs and amending Directive 2001/18. Official Journal of the European Union, L 268, 24–28.Google Scholar
  7. EC. (2007). Commission Decision 2007/232/EC of 26 March 2007 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of oilseed rape products (Brassica napus L., lines Ms8, Rf3 and Ms8xRf3) genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium (notified under document number C(2007) 1234). Official Journal of the European Communities. L 100, 17 April: page 20.Google Scholar
  8. EEC. (1990). Council directive 90/220 on the deliberate release to the environment of genetically modified organisms. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 117, 15–27.Google Scholar
  9. Gaskell, G. (2008). Lessons from the bio-decade. In K. David & P. B. Thompson (Eds.), What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology?: Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs (pp. 237–258). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 13–45). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levidow, L. (1996). Simulating mother nature, industrializing agriculture. In G. Robertson et al. (Eds.), Future natural: Nature, science, culture (pp. 55–71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2010). GM food on trial: Testing European democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Levidow, L., Carr, S., & Wield, D. (2000). Genetically modified crops in the European Union: Regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities. Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levidow, L., Carr, S., & Wield, D. (2005). EU regulation of agri-biotechnology: Precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(4), 261–276. http://technology.open.ac.uk/cts/peg/sppaug2005eu%20fin.pdf
  15. Levidow, L., Murphy, J., & Carr, S. (2007). Recasting ‘Substantial Equivalence’: Transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(1), 26–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McHugen, A. (2008). Learning from mistakes. In K. David & P. B. Thompson (Eds.), What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs (pp. 33–53). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Murphy, J., & Levidow, L. (2006). Governing the transatlantic conflict over agricultural biotechnology: Contending coalitions, trade liberalisation and standard setting. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK