scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs)

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
Anisa ◽  
Chelsilya ◽  
Grace Yohana ◽  
Mucco Eva ◽  
Morry Zefanya ◽  
...  

Current technological advances have been present in all aspects of human life, including technological advances in biotechnology. Biotechnology not only raises hope for science but also raises heated debates among scientists, especially between the European Union and the US. This debate arises because of differences in perspective between the EU and the US. The EU has stringent rules regarding the development efforts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At the same time, the US thinks that GMOs are part of agriculture, so there is no need for any special laws to regulate them. Various side effects also come hand in hand with the birth of GMOs. They are ranging from adverse effects on human health, the health of food products, and even environmental damage. The development of GMOs can damage the ecosystem of species that exist in the environment. Still, more complex problems arise due to GMOs like economic problems and monopolies.   Keywords: The  GMOs, The EU, The US.

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Mauro G. Carta ◽  
Matthias C. Angermeyer ◽  
Silvano Tagliagambe

The purpose is to verify trends of scientific production from 2010 to 2020, considering the best universities of the United States, China, the European Union (EU), and private companies. The top 30 universities in 2020 in China, the EU, and the US and private companies were selected from the SCImago institutions ranking (SIR). The positions in 2020, 2015, and 2010 in SIR and three sub-indicators were analyzed by means of non-parametric statistics, taking into consideration the effect of time and group on rankings. American and European Union universities have lost positions to Chinese universities and even more to private companies, which have improved. In 2020, private companies have surpassed all other groups considering Innovation as a sub-indicator. The loss of leadership of European and partly American universities mainly concerns research linked to the production of patents. This can lead to future risks of monopoly that may elude public control and cause a possible loss of importance of research not linked to innovation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chensong Fei

In this paper, we firstly analyzed the categories and characteristics of safety hazards of genetically modified organisms. Then, we summarized and compared the laws on safety hazard compensation for genetically modified organisms in the United States, the European Union and China. Finally, suggestions were put forward to solve the existing problems in compensation laws in China so as to ensure the healthy and orderly development of China's genetically modified biological industry. 


Author(s):  
Jean-Christophe Bureau ◽  
Luca Salvatici

Abstract This paper provides a summary measure of the possible new commitments in the area of agricultural market access undertaken by the European Union and the United States, using the Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI) as the tariff aggregator. We take the 2001 bound tariffs as the starting point and attempt to assess how much liberalization in agriculture could be achieved in the European Union and the United States as a result of the present negotiations. We compute the index for 20 agricultural commodity aggregates under the actual commitments assuming a specific functional form for import demand. We compare the present levels of the TRI with three hypothetical cases: a repetition of the same set of tariff cuts commitments of the Uruguay Round according to a EU proposal prior to the 2003 WTO ministerial meeting, a uniform 36% reduction of each tariff, an harmonization ( "Swiss" ) formula based on the initial US proposal.


Author(s):  
Anne Saab

This chapter examines comparative approaches to risk assessment and regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It first provides a brief background on the emergence, increased use, and controversy surrounding GMOs as well as the important legal questions and complexities they raise before discussing the legal approaches used to assess and regulate risks associated with GM foods, labelling of GM foods, and the application of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to GMOs. In particular, it considers risk assessment in the United States and in the European Union, focusing on the precautionary approach versus the permissive approach. It also compares process regulation and product regulation for regulating the risks posed by GMOs in the United States and the European Union, along with risk assessment and regulation in Brazil, China, and Costa Rica. Finally, it analyses the legal framework for IPRs as they apply to GMOs and comparative approaches to patenting GMOs.


2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (11) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
A. Kokeev

Relations between Germany, the US and NATO today are the core of transatlantic links. After the Cold War and the reunification of Germany, NATO has lost its former importance to Germany which was not a "frontline state" anymore. The EU acquired a greater importance for German politicians applying both for certain political independence and for establishing of a broad partnership with Russia and China. The task of the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) development has been regarded by Berlin as a necessary component of the NATO's transformation into a “balanced Euro-American alliance”, and the realization of this project as the most important prerequisite for a more independent foreign policy. Germany’s refusal to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the first serious crisis in US Germany relations. At the same time, there was no radical break of the deeply rooted Atlanticism tradition in German policy. It was Angela Merkel as a new head of the German government (2005) who managed to smooth largely disagreements in relations with the United States. Atlanticism remains one of the fundamental foreign policy elements for any German government, mostly because Berlin’s hope for deepening of the European integration and transition to the EU CFSP seems unrealistic in the foreseeable future. However, there is still a fundamental basis of disagreements emerged in the transatlantic relationship (reduction of a military threat weakening Berlin’s dependence from Washington, and the growing influence of Germany in the European Union). According to the federal government's opinion, Germany's contribution to the NATO military component should not be in increasing, but in optimizing of military expenses. However, taking into account the incipient signs of the crisis overcoming in the EU, and still a tough situation around Ukraine, it seems that in the medium-term perspective one should expect further enhancing of Germany’s participation in NATO military activities and, therefore, a growth in its military expenses. In Berlin, there is a wide support for the idea of the European army. However, most experts agree that it can be implemented only when the EU develops the Common Foreign and Defense Policy to a certain extent. The US Germany espionage scandals following one after another since 2013 have seriously undermined the traditional German trust to the United States as a reliable partner. However, under the impact of the Ukrainian conflict, the value of military-political dimension of Germany’s transatlantic relations and its dependence on the US and NATO security guarantees increased. At the same time, Washington expects from Berlin as a recognized European leader a more active policy toward Russia and in respect of some other international issues. In the current international political situation, the desire to expand political influence in the world and achieve a greater autonomy claimed by German leaders seems to Berlin only possible in the context of transatlantic relations strengthening and solidarity within the NATO the only military-political organization of the West which is able to ensure the collective defense for its members against the external threats. However, it is important to take into consideration that not only the value of the United States and NATO for Germany, but also the role of Germany in the North Atlantic Alliance as a “representative of European interests” has increased. The role of Germany as a mediator in establishing the West–Russia relations remains equally important.


2013 ◽  
Vol 781-784 ◽  
pp. 1341-1346
Author(s):  
Ren Yuan Li

The European Union and the United States have imposed different legal management on the genetically modified food. There are some disadvantages in the legal regime of China concerning the management of GMF which make the regal reform on the issue of GMF become necessary. To ensure food safety, China should take the legal regime of EU as reference and raise its standards for the market access of the GMF. The requirements of traceability and labeling for GMF should also be included in law. A centralized governmental department responsible for the issues of GMF should also be established.


2021 ◽  
pp. 25-37
Author(s):  
Andrii Martynov

The article is devoted to Germany’s presidency in the European Union in the second half of 2020. This was a critical period in the modern history of the process of European integration. Conflicting tendencies emerged during the negotiations on the terms of the Brexit. The budget policy of the European Union required approval. The key tasks of the German presidency were the internal problems of the European Union. But it was not possible to focus exclusively on immanent issues. The pandemic has exacerbated international problems. German diplomacy joined in the settlement of the Greek-Turkish controversy. Germany and France have reached a common position on an agreement on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the Brexit. Germany has reached a compromise on the adoption of the European Union budget for the period up to 2027. A large fund was created to support the European economy during the pandemic. Germany has set trends for the development of the European Union’s relations with key partners: the United States, Russia, and China. Germany welcomed Joseph Biden’s victory in the US presidential election. The European Union is considering resuming negotiations on a transatlantic free trade area with the United States. The EU and the US are ready to renew the Euro-Atlantic partnership. The interaction between the EU and the US is designed to protect liberal democracy in the modern world. With the assistance of Germany, the European Union has signed an investment agreement with China. Beijing has pledged to introduce social security guarantees and limit human rights abuses. Russia’s authoritarian threats remain a challenge to the European integration process. During Germany’s presidency of the European Union, the results of the presidential election in Belarus and the poisoning of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny became conflicting issues. The German presidency was successful. In the internal policy of the European Union it was possible to form a strategy of ecological renewal of the European economy. The success of the environmental modernization of the EU economy systematically depends on the internal capacity of elites and European societies to implement this course and on the favorable balance of power in a globalized world.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-71
Author(s):  
Frank Akpoviri ◽  
Zinatul Zainol ◽  
Syarul Baharum

This article examines how synthetic biology, which is the construction of novel biological parts, devices, and systems, as well as the modification of regular organisms, impacts biosafety regimes in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US). The article examines the nature and benefits of synthetic biology. It then reviews associated biosafety challenges, before analysing the suitability of governance frameworks in the EU and the US in dealing with these challenges. Based on this analysis, the article contends that, despite some similarities with older technologies, synthetic biology is essentially novel. Consequently, it undermines existing biosafety regimes in both jurisdictions. The article advocates for effective governance, combining formal regulation and self-governance, in addition to the global coordination of governance measures. This will help maintain an agile policy and curtail any regulatory loopholes. This article fosters awareness on the existence of many unresolved controversies over the synthetic biology technology.


Author(s):  
Oleg Prikhodko

The European Union is an important player in the U.S. policies aimed at maintaining liberal world order. The US-EU interaction has been shaped by a number of key variables, including international environment, specific goals of the U.S. administrations, institutional maturing of the EU, and a complex interplay of American and European diverging and overlapping interests. President D. Trump’s tenure was the most strained period in the US-EU relations, with an erosion of mutual trust and a ghost of trade war looming large. The Biden administration has reversed the U.S. policy towards the European Union. The US-EU summit held last June signified a return of normality in the relations of the transatlantic partners. Washington and Brussels outlined a broad agenda that embraces security, trade and economic issues, coordination in international affairs (concerning, in particular, Russia, China, and Iran), cooperation in decarbonizing of the world economy and promotion of a climate-friendly environment. A broad web of links between the United States and Europe facilitates their joining efforts in addressing global and regional challenges. Although, the US and the EU reached a series of compromises to mitigate their most acrimonious disagreements (Boeing–Airbus subsidies dispute is a vivid example in this regard), there are still unsettled major issues like a comprehensive free trade treaty unsuccessfully negotiated since the Obama presidency. The “Chinese factor” may turn out to be the most divisive one in the transatlantic relations, since the U.S. tough policy towards Beijing makes the EU countries to take hard decisions they prefer to avoid. While it is premature to predict precise implications of the Biden administration’s policy, one can reasonably expect the EU to become a more helpful partner to Washington in diplomatic and economic affairs.


2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 620-627
Author(s):  
Roberto Defez

Purpose The debate around the use and study of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is so complex that frequently people miss that the outcome of some political/social/economic decisions are taken in such a way that the legal/agricultural/medical coherence is lost. The purpose of this text is to underline the contradictions in the European approach to GMOs, when for the past 20 years the European Union (EU) has been using and importing GMOs but rejecting its study or cultivation. Design/methodology/approach The approach follows the distance among public declarations against GMOs from most of the political representatives, followed by decision on our health, nutrition and economic development going exactly in the opposite direction. The arrival of the new genome-edited plants cannot solve all requirements, as in many cases an entire new function should be added and, at present, this will be again a GMO irrespective to the technique used to add a new gene. The delay in taking these decisions are now posing a hazard on the cultural and economic development of the EU. Findings The laws (directives) on GMOs in the EU are far too restrictive and suffer from an over-regulation that prevent any attempt to come to a science-based approach on genetically modified (GM) plants. The basis for the definition and the restrictions is on the technology and not on the final product. However, on the other hand, the GMOs are the only product where the safety analysis is on the final product (which is not the case for organics productions). The paradox is that all restrictions are concentrated on GM plants to be cultivated in Europe, as if the main hazard would be on the environmental impact of local cultivation. Meanwhile, the EU has no concern if the same environmental damage happens abroad and EU is the final user of the technology as 68 different GMOs are imported and used even for human consumption in Europe. Originality/value Fighting against the EU over-regulation would appear to be a position supporting multinational seed companies (none of them based in the EU), described as polluters. The proposed approach is the opposite, asking for a more restrictive regulation to show to the consumers that: most local EU high quality food products are derived from GM-fed animals; GM cotton is potentially far more risky than any GM food; and reducing GM plants cultivated in Europe increases the pesticide sold by chemical companies (mostly based in the EU).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document