Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
scienti
fi
c evidence can be e
ff
ective arbiters in cases where democratic justi
fi
cations (what
consumers and voters want) do not line up with scienti
ed by
science). It also raises questions about the consequences that the GMO trade dispute
between the two biggest economic powers in the global system has for other countries,
and poor countries in particular.
The following section describes the polarization of regulatory policies for GMOs. In
Section 2 we examine why GMO regulations in the EU and the USA have moved in di
fi
c justi
fi
cations (risks identi
fi
er-
ent directions. Section 3 looks at the WTO dispute on GMOs. In Section 4 we explore the
e
ff
ects on developing countries. In Section 5 we conclude by discussing normative issues
and policy options for moving beyond deadlock.
ff
1.
Genetically modi
fi
ed (GM) crops and regulatory polarization
The
rst 'green revolution' started in the 1930s. It brought rapid yield increases through-
out the 1970s in corn and other temperate-climate crops through increasingly e
fi
ective fer-
tilizers, pesticides, crop species, machinery and farm management. The average farmer in
modern agriculture is thus able to feed up to 30 non-farmers. The second green revolu-
tion took place in the 1960s and 1970s: it carried the same technologies to the developing
world and crops grown in the tropics (particularly rice). Genetic engineering in agricul-
ture may lead to a third green revolution, although it is still at an early stage. It emerged
in the 1970s and was commercialized in the 1990s. The proponents of this technology
claim that it will result in another massive increase in agronomic productivity and also
provide qualitative improvements in the food supply (e.g. healthier food).
One of the big di
ff
rst two green revolutions and the (potentially)
third one is that the latter has not been greeted with unquali
ff
erences between the
fi
ed enthusiasm. In fact, we
have witnessed a process of global regulatory polarization as EU countries have imposed
severe regulatory constraints on GMOs, whereas the USA has opened its market to most
agri-biotech applications. Other countries have either aligned with one or the other of the
world's two largest economies, or they have been struggling to
fi
nd some middle ground.
This process of polarization is quite surprising. In the mid-1980s, the GMO policies of
West European countries, the USA and other nations were similar. But at the end of the
1980s, they began to drift apart. From 1990 on, the EU and its member states turned to
ever more stringent approval and labeling standards for GMOs, with strong emphasis on
the precautionary principle. The result is that very few agricultural biotech applications
have been approved for commercialization in the EU. Commercial planting of GM crops
in EU countries accounts only for a tiny fraction of total crop cultivation. And the number
of GM crop
fi
eld trials is much smaller than in the USA. The number of labeled GM food
products on the EU market has approached zero as food processors and retailers have
chosen to avoid rather than label GM foods. The EU's market for GM food products has
shrunk to GM food ingredients and animal feed not subject to mandatory labeling.
Policy-makers in the USA have opted for an entirely di
fi
erent approach. They have
embraced agricultural biotechnology. They view genetic engineering as a new and innov-
ative food and feed production technology that does not
per se
make produced food
or feed less safe than their conventional counterparts. The US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have installed relatively simple noti
ff
cation procedures, have left
pre-market risk assessments to industry, and have approved most industry requests for
fi
