This article discusses the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and argues that the European precautionary principle is preferable to the U.S. principle of substantial equivalence. It emphasizes that European regulation should prevent environmental harm, involve input from environmentalists, consumers, and small farmers as well as experts, and take into account social issues such as the rights of small farmers.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are the application of genetic engineering technology to agriculture, promising revolutionary changes in productivity, nutrition, and the environment. Against this backdrop, some countries, including the U.S., are producing and exporting GM crops, but the potential risks to human health and the environment and the violation of small farmers’ rights have led the U.S. and Europe to take opposing GMO regulation policies. Korea’s GMO regulation is similar to the US policy, but we believe that the European approach should be prioritized.
Europe’s precautionary principle Europe uses the precautionary principle to strictly screen GMOs for risk and conduct continuous monitoring. The precautionary principle is an important element of international environmental law, which recognizes that environmental harm can be reduced by proactively preventing it when it is anticipated. Europe initially adopted the U.S. principle of substantial equivalence, but after NGOs raised concerns and a growing movement among experts to question the safety of GMOs, Europe moved toward the precautionary principle. The U.S., on the other hand, continues to regulate based on the principle of substantial equivalence, recognizing the safety of GM crops if the science shows that they are as safe as conventional foods.
Expertise The research on the risks of GMOs is still scarce, and the results are inconsistent: some studies claim catastrophic risks, while others show no problems, which is confusing. In areas where scientific facts alone are difficult to determine, it’s important to include the voices of NGOs, consumers, and small farmers, which is what the European precautionary principle does. This ensures that policy is not based solely on the views of expert groups and corporations, and that diverse societal voices are heard.
The risks of GMOs GMOs can be superior to conventional crops in terms of productivity and nutritional value, contributing to agricultural development. However, Europe does not ban GMOs, but keeps tabs on their risks through mandatory labeling and monitoring. The United States also regulates non-GM refuges, pesticide concentration limits, and more, but to a lesser extent than Europe. While different societies’ cultures may perceive risk differently, it is desirable to strictly regulate GMOs with a precautionary principle because of their high potential harm and potential to affect future generations.
The nature of regulatory science The precautionary principle in Europe is sometimes criticized for generating unnecessary controversy and costs, but current scientific limitations do not allow us to accurately measure the risks of GMOs. European regulatory policies are also socially and politically motivated, and have procedural legitimacy because they take into account the views of consumers and environmental groups on GMOs.
Farmers’ rights In addition to scientific issues, GMO regulatory policy is intertwined with a number of social issues. The patenting and commercialization of GM crops by multinational corporations infringes on the rights of small family farmers to control their seeds, putting them at risk. GMOs affect countries around the world beyond the United States and Europe, and without a European precautionary principle, many countries will not be able to avoid importing GMOs from the United States.
The United States has embraced the risks posed by GMOs as part of its technological innovation, but innovation does not have to come at the expense of risk. GMOs are a complex issue with social, economic, and environmental factors that cannot be judged solely on the basis of scientific knowledge. Europe has implemented procedurally justifiable regulations that take into account a range of social factors, not just science, in their regulatory policymaking process, so their approach to regulation should be prioritized over the US.
