This blog post examines why the European approach to GMO regulation, centered on the precautionary principle, should be prioritized over the American approach.
GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) hold the promise of revolutionary changes in productivity, nutrition, and environmental impact through the application of genetic engineering technology in agriculture. Against this backdrop, while some countries, including the US, produce and export GM crops, the potential risks to human health and the environment, along with concerns about infringing on small farmers’ rights, have led the US and Europe to adopt opposing GMO regulatory approaches. While Korea’s GMO regulations are similar to the US approach, we believe the European model should take precedence.
Europe’s Precautionary Principle Europe rigorously assesses the risks of GMOs based on the precautionary principle and implements continuous monitoring. The precautionary principle is a principle that proactively prevents and minimizes environmental damage when such harm is anticipated, and it is also considered a crucial element in international environmental law. Initially, Europe accepted the U.S. principle of substantial equivalence. However, as NGOs raised concerns and doubts about GMO safety spread among experts, Europe adopted the precautionary principle. In contrast, the United States continues its regulation based on the substantial equivalence principle, recognizing the safety of GM crops if they are scientifically determined to be as safe as conventional foods.
Expertise Research on the risks of GMOs is still insufficient, and the results are inconsistent. Some studies claim fatal risks from GMOs, while others find no issues, creating confusion. Furthermore, in areas where judgment based solely on scientific facts is difficult, it is crucial to reflect the opinions of NGOs, consumers, and small farmers. Europe’s precautionary principle achieves this. It ensures policies are not determined solely by expert groups and corporate perspectives but incorporate diverse societal voices.
Risks of GMOs GMOs can contribute to agricultural development by potentially outperforming conventional crops in terms of productivity and nutritional value. However, Europe does not ban GMOs; instead, it continuously monitors their safety through mandatory labeling and monitoring systems. The US also regulates GMOs, such as establishing non-GMO refuges and limiting pesticide concentrations, but the intensity of these regulations is lower than in Europe. While societies may perceive risks differently based on their cultures, given the significant potential risks of GMOs and their possible impact on future generations, strict regulation based on the precautionary principle is desirable.
Characteristics of Regulatory Science Europe’s precautionary principle faces criticism for sometimes generating unnecessary debate and costs. However, current scientific limitations prevent the precise measurement of GMO risks. Europe’s regulatory policy incorporates social and political motivations, incorporating the views of consumers and environmental groups on GMOs, thereby securing procedural legitimacy.
Farmers’ Rights GMO regulatory policies are entangled with various social issues beyond scientific concerns. Multinational corporations patenting and commercially exploiting GM crops infringes on small farmers’ seed control rights, causing hardship for small family farms. GMOs impact countries worldwide beyond the US and Europe; if Europe’s precautionary principle does not take root, many nations will be unable to avoid importing US GMOs.
While the US accepts the risks of GMOs as part of technological innovation, it is not necessary to accept all risks for the sake of innovation. GMOs are a complex issue involving intertwined social, economic, and environmental factors that cannot be judged solely by scientific knowledge. Europe has implemented procedurally sound regulations by reflecting not only science but also various social factors in its regulatory policy decision-making process. Therefore, Europe’s regulatory approach should take precedence over that of the US.
