Genetically Modified seeds of change
Civitas, 14 July 2010
In an extraordinary move announced this week, the EU proposed that decisions on genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation be returned to national jurisdiction, writes Natalie Hamill.
The EU Commission’s new proposal will allow pro-GM member states to decide whether to allow GM crops to be grown within their territory, whilst giving anti-GM governments the chance to say no to GM cultivation within their borders. For an institution obsessed with the objective of an “ever closer union” the Commission’s move is unprecedented. So why has the EU decided to acquiesce to member states’ wishes and devolve decision-making on GM back to the national level?
The BBC’s reasoning is the EU has recognised that “differing local conditions mean EU countries need more flexibility to decide where, if at all, GM crops are grown”.
However, the most likely reason behind the EU’s u-turn is that it has faced increasing pressure from those frustrated at the lack of progress on GM cultivation. Along with pro-GM European Union states, the USA has long been complaining about EU indecision on the GM debate. With member states fiercely divided, the Commission could not push for EU-wide policy on GM crop cultivation, but its new proposal could potentially end the EU’s 12-year deadlock on this controversial subject.
The variance of opinion across the EU on this contentious issue has long been evident; there is a near 50/50 split between those member states who adamantly favour GM crop cultivation and those who are passionately against it. Hopes to find a working compromise across the 27 states were unrealistically optimistic. Many doubters want indubitably scientific research into the potential health and environmental risks. Without a clearer understanding of exactly what the risks and benefits are, EU states will continue to disagree about whether GM cultivation is a risk worth taking, or one that is better avoided at all costs.
Over the last decade, the EU has approved only a fraction of applications for GM crop cultivation (the Maize MON 810 is the only variety grown commercially in the EU, and earlier this year the cultivation of the Amflora potato was approved for the extraction of starch). The new proposal will enable more extensive GM cultivation and the EU will no longer have to battle with Member States to get each GM crop considered. Governments such as the UK and the Netherlands, who are big advocates of GM cultivation, will greet the concession by the EU with relief as they can now, in principle, move ahead with large scale GM cultivation.
However, anti-GM campaigners are concerned by the EU’s proposal because states will only be able to ban the production of GM crops on ethical grounds which, as the European Voice warns, are far easier for a court to overturn than if the member state was allowed to raise scientific or environmental objections. Even if states do achieve a ban from cultivation within their national border, environmental organisation Greenpeace says, “GM contamination does not stop at national borders”.
Furthermore, individual states must “approve all new GM crops at EU level without fuss”, before opting-out at a later stage. This will put some governments under pressure to allow something they principally disagree with (i.e. GM crop cultivation within the EU), in order to oppose it individually later on.
Attempts to develop a unified policy on GM crop cultivation at the EU level has failed because this is a highly litigious issue. However, the EU would only relinquish its power over the issue if it stood to benefit in the long run, and this apparent U-turn on GM cultivation achieves exactly that. This particular devolution of power will put some member states’ governments under pressure. The Commission’s new proposal provides a cunning way for the EU to circumvent the “difficult” states that have so far obstructed GM cultivation, to finally get the results they want.