Political Posturing or Real Powers: Control of Genetically Modified Crops by the Member States and their Regions

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU is highly harmonised, involving a central authorisation procedure that aims to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection. However conflicts over authority persist and the Commission has responded to a combination of internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause and recently a promise by the head of the Commission to review the existing EU GM legislative regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. In light of the significance of multilevel governance and subsidiarity for GM cultivation, this paper considers the policy-making powers of the Member States and subnational regions in this regime, focussing upon post-authorisation options in particular. A number of core mechanisms exist, including voluntary measures, safeguard clauses, coexistence measures, a proposed express opt-out and Article 4(2) TEU on ‘national identity. These mechanisms are examined in light of the goals and challenges of multilevel governance, in order to consider whether the relevant powers are located at the appropriate level. Overall, it is apparent that the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening multilevel governance, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing on the supporting roles and the regional levels in particular.

Attaining Subsidiarity-Based Multilevel Governance of Genetically Modified Cultivation?

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU is highly harmonised, but with persisting conflicts over authority. The Commission responded to internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause and a promise to review the existing EU GM regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. This article considers the post-authorisation policy-making powers of Member States and subnational regions, in light of subsidiarity-based multilevel governance. It considers the different approaches to risk-centred issues and more general policy choices. Overall, the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening subsidiarity-based multilevel governance within the GM cultivation regime, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing on the complementary powers, coordination and the regional levels in particular.

Genetically Engineered Crops' Authorizations in the US and the EU: a Struggle Against the Clock

The regulation of genetically engineered crops is important for society: ensuring their safety for humans and the environment. Their authorization starts with a scientific step and ends with a political step. Trends in the time taken for their authorization in the European Union are that they are decreasing, but in the United States there is a break in the overall trend: initially it decreased until 1998 after which it increased.

Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms in Ireland – Laissez faire approach?

This chapter examines the legal framework applicable to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ireland, bearing in mind the limited presence of GMOs. As a member of the European Union (EU), a specific, process-based regime applies regarding the authorisation and regulation of GMOs. This is intended to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection and also enable producer and consumer choice. This regime is highly harmonized, but allows some flexibility regarding its implementation and, soon, the potential to opt-out from cultivation in part or entirely. Although, Ireland has only legislated on the area to the extent and in the manner required by the EU, it may avail of the opt-out in future – understandable in light of the lack of any cultivation currently and the green image of Ireland.
Complementary horizontal legislation and common law principles, relevant to labelling and varying forms of liability, deal with most issues that might arise quite comprehensively. However, they are quite complicated, overlapping and untailored and it is worth considering whether specific legislation should be developed to deal with liability related to GMOs.
Overall, Ireland holds varying stances to different forms of GMOs, with the greatest acceptance and use of GM-feed for pragmatic reasons. It has not developed a specific Irish approach, copy-pasting EU legislation and relying upon existing law to deal with any issues. This is understandable in light of the high level of harmonization and limited presence of GMOs in Ireland, but nonetheless will need to be developed as the availability of GMOs increases.

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific step (risk assessment), and ends with a political decision-making step (risk management); and in the United States (US) it starts with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision-making step. We investigated trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU (traders in these commodities). Results show that from 1996-2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion-time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time: Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998-2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.

Excluding Coexistence of GMOs? The Impact of the EU Commission's 2010 Recommendation on Coexistence

In the midst of the European Union (EU) genetically modified organisms (GMOs) regime, coexistence of GM and non-GM crops alongside each other remains technically within the competence of the Member States. Post EU authorization of a GM crop, Member States may legally take appropriate measures to limit or prevent the presence of GMOs within non-GM crops. In July 2010, as part of a Cultivation Package, the Commission created a new Coexistence Recommendation that supports a flexible approach to more stringent coexistence measures by the States, while attempting to maintain control over the legitimate objectives justifying the measures. This article analyzes the impact of the 2010 Recommendation upon coexistence in the context of the existing practices and the previous 2003 Recommendation, taking into account its status as a soft law document and the ‘domino effect’. It is argued that the 2010 Recommendation may have greater practical and legal ramifications for coexistence than might first be thought. In attempting to create guidelines that allow a more flexible and inclusive approach towards national measures, the 2010 Recommendation may act as a catalyst to eventually exclude GM cultivation within Member States.

Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon scanning

1. Horizon scanning is an essential tool for environmental scientists if they are to contribute to the evidence base for Government, its agencies and other decision makers to devise and implement environmental policies. The implication of not foreseeing issues that are foreseeable is illustrated by the contentious responses to genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops in the UK, and by challenges surrounding biofuels, foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and climate change.

Coexistence of GMOs in the EU – A Veritable Choice?

This chapter examines the issue of coexistence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) alongside conventional and organic crops. The central focus is on whether there is a veritable opportunity for coexistence of all three types of crops, which allows for freedom of choice by both farmers and consumers. It commences by considering the nature of the general GM regime, the relationship between the frameworks for cultivation and the use and sale of GM food and feed, and the main elements of the cultivation regime. In light of this, the concept of coexistence is considered, with an evaluation of both the legal and practical elements. Although the general GM regime is controlled at an EU level, coexistence is apparently left to the Member States who may take appropriate coexistence measures. Nonetheless, the Commission has created Recommendations that are to guide the Member States in their choice of measures. To a great extent, what is considered ‘appropriate’ is to be determined by the economic impact upon the farmers and the relationship with the labelling thresholds. The chapter evaluates the future of coexistence, bearing in mind the continued use of the safeguard clauses, the declaration of ‘GM-free’ regions, the potential for national ‘opt-outs’ and the general practical challenges of maintaining coexistence including the ‘domino effect’. Overall, it is arguable that coexistence is a misnomer and that if the term’s meaning is strictly maintained then veritable coexistence that allows for freedom of choice by both farmers and consumers seems unattainable. Although not directly controlled by CAP, there are strong areas of overlap and they share a number of similar objectives; the chapter will conclude by considering whether the approaches in relation to CAP and the cultivation of GMOs are converging or diverging.