Genetically Modified Crops

2021 ◽  
pp. 112-133
Author(s):  
Alasdair R. Young

This chapter presents the EU’s responses with respect to three closely related policies: the approval of genetically modified (GM) crops for sale and (separately) for cultivation and efforts to lift member state bans on EU-approved GM varieties. These most similar cases differ in outcome; with the EU resuming approvals for sale (a change sufficient to placate Argentina and Canada, but not the United States), but not for cultivation and failing to address member state bans despite very permissive decision rules. In these cases, no tariffs were threatened and there was no exporter mobilization. Commission trade officials did push to accelerate approvals. The Commission, which was more favorably disposed toward biotechnology than most of the member states, was able, with the help of very a permissive decision rule, to overcome opposition to approvals for sale, but not for cultivation, reflecting greater concern among regulators about the environmental impacts of GM cultivation than about the safety of GM varieties. The member state governments also balked at forcing their peers to change their policies. There is little evidence that the WTO’s adverse ruling affected any of the protagonists’ preferences.

Subject Optimistic outlook for Russian agriculture. Significance Russia is set to overtake Canada and the United States to become the world's largest grain exporter this year, and some forecasters are predicting even higher levels. Moscow has extended its embargo on food imports until the end of 2016, although a recent thaw in relations with Turkey should revive fruit, vegetable and dairy imports from that country. Russian agriculture has performed well, boosted by an import substitution programme. Impacts If the EU lifts sanctions in January 2017, Russia may reciprocate, but food imports will not bounce back to their former scale. Russian food exporters will seek new markets and build export terminals to serve them. Moscow will be a bastion against genetically modified food products.


Significance The opposition now has a real chance to unseat Prime Minister Viktor Orban in the 2022 elections for the first time since Fidesz’s 2010 landslide. Vast incumbent advantages and a likely spending spree fuelled by EU funds still make Orban the likelier winner, but as a political outsider, Marki-Zay may appeal beyond the opposition’s traditional base. Impacts Russia retains an interest in keeping Orban in power and Kremlin meddling in the election is possible. The United States has an interest in change and may contribute to it, for instance through sanctions, as it did in Bulgaria last summer. To avoid appearing to interfere in member state politics, the EU will postpone planned moves to withhold funding from Hungary.


Significance Global order and institutions have been undermined by the hostile assertiveness of the United States, China, Russia and Turkey; COVID-19 has strengthened the trend. This leaves Europe facing the daunting challenge of pursuing a new geostrategic agenda conducive to political unity and economic success. Impacts The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 across the EU risks accelerating Euroscepticism. In the wake of budget cuts and member state divisions the EU will continue to struggle to stabilise troubles in its neighbourhood. EU efforts to assert its international influence by shaping the global regulatory environment risk facing greater backlash.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 991
Author(s):  
David N. Cassuto ◽  
Drew Levinson

As of 2014, genetically modified crops occupied 448 million acres globally, representing a global market value of 15.7 billion dollars. The United States planted 170 million acres of genetically engineered crops in 2012, including 95% of the nation's sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 88% of the feed corn. While many argue that biotechnology is essential to ensuring long-term food security in the climate change era, little is known of its impact on ecosystems.  Potential risks such as changes in adaptive characteristics, gene flow, pest resistance, genotypic or phenotypic instability and adverse effects on non-target organisms must be balanced with the benefits of genetically modified crops. Despite much perseveration about the risks and benefits of GMOs, the United States regulatory regime has remained stagnant, unable to adapt to new innovations in the field. This lack of adequate oversight cannot go on. We propose shifting responsibility to a single agency charged with implementing science-based regulations that embrace the precautionary principle and promote early collaboration among stakeholders, multidisciplinary research, and well-designed monitoring. Part I of this Article provides an overview of biotechnology in modern agriculture.  More specifically, it evaluates potential benefits and risks associated with genetically modified crops. Part II outlines the United States regulatory regime as it applies to genetically modified crops.  Part III analyzes the current regulatory process, focusing specifically on the Department of Agriculture’s ineffective role in the environmental review process. Last, Part IV offers several potential adjustments to improve our ability to identify and mitigate the unforeseeable consequences of implementing this revolutionary technology. 


2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Rosso Grossman

This article first discusses some benefits and risks of agricultural crops developed through biotechnology and then outlines the complex US regulatory scheme for genetically modified crops. The article then analyses nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability as possible tort law remedies for damage caused by these crops.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document