150 likes | 227 Views
Explore the intersection of technical risk assessment and emotional discourse in EU GMO regulations, including legal implications, philosophical arguments, and democracy considerations. Discover if and how emotions shape regulatory decisions.
E N D
EU Regulations on GMOs– decisionsbased on science or emotions? JolantaBesfamilnaja, Sebastian Mutala, Felix Runerand Tove Skärblom
Task: • To whatextent – if at all - does EU regulations on GMOs, whichrelies on technical risk assessmentof the human health and environmentalimpactsof GMOs, consider emotional discourse? • Ought it?
Comitology process • EU countries control how the European Commission implements EU law. • The Commission consult for the detailed implementing measures it proposes in a committee where every EU country is represented. • No qualified majority for or against – Commission choose: carry out the proposed implementing measure or submit a new version of it to the committee. • Invokes emotion discourse?
Case law: (2011): Monsanto SAS and othersC-58/10 to C-68/10 • Cultivation ban can be adoptedonlyif ”the situation is likelytoconstitute a clear and serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment”. • A clearverdict, that EU memberstatescannot ban GM based on myths and hearsay?
Case law: (2012): Pionerr Hi Bred Italia Srl v MinisterodellePoliticheagricolealimentari e forestali C – 36/11 • “The cultivation of genetically modified organisms such as the MON 810 maize varieties cannot be made subject to a national authorisation procedure when the use and marketing of those varieties are authorized”.
Case law (2011): Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern C – 442/09 • All honey containing traces of genetically-modified (GM) productsmust always be regarded as food produced from a GMO; • Honey contaminated by pollen from a GM maize variety cannot be sold on the market; • A proof how conventional and genetically-modified agriculture cannot co-exist?
Legality: the Internal Market The Treaty and Cassis • Does the GMO legislationconform to internaltraderules?
EU policy and International agreements GATT/SPS • Decision of 2006: The EU hadactedcontrarytoits international obligations Implication for the EU policy • The decision wasnarrow: focused on unduedelay • Will it affectfuture EU policy?
Is the WTO a ”good forum” for GMO conflicts? • Whychoose WTO/SPS over the CPB? • Further WTO action is possible – however the politicalimplicationsareto be considered
Should the regulation of GMOs consider emotion discourse? Philosophical arguments • What is the objective of [GMO] legislation? • Harmonization? • A free market? • An accurate reflection of the will of the demos? • What is our core sociological / political pursuit? • To increase understanding? • To make scientific progress? • Happiness?
Should the regulation of GMOs consider emotion discourse? Democracy and Legitimacy • Is there a ‘democratic deficit’ in GMO regulation? • Recent developments • Comitology • European Citizens’ Initiative
Should the regulation of GMOs consider emotion discourse? Democracy and Legitimacy • The democratic case for increased uptake of emotion discourse in GMO regulation • What form would emotion discourse take? • Direct democracy • Representative democracy • Special interest • A question of trade-offs