European and
American
Regulatory Politics and Policies
Professor David J.
Vogel,
University of California Berkeley
Checkbiotech.org 12mar01
Mindfully.org
note: At the time of this article, Checkbiotech.org was an Internet
platform sponsored by Syngenta, one of the major biotech
corporations. |
I think there are three major reasons why over the last 15 years European politics and policies have become more risk adverse over a wide range of areas. I think one is the emergence of a common European concern about health, which has moved from Northern Europe to Central and Western Europe. I think the second factor is the growing regulatory role of the EU, which has generally supported more risk adverse policies and provided more space for civic groups. And I think thirdly, and perhaps most critically, a series of major regulatory failures both at the European and national level which have undermined public confidence and the competence of regulations and regulatory officials, and in new technologies.
It seems to me that the precautionary principal is most frequently invoked in Europe when there is a high degree of public anxiety and concern and it really, it seems to me, comes out of a risk-benefit analysis on the part of politicians, and is most going to be used when the cost to the public appear to be modest and when public concerns and anxiety of the particular policy are very high and strong.
The EU, I think, has a serious set of regulatory problems. One is simply its very nature. It would be one thing for the people in a particular European country to respect or trust their own government officials. But of course it is a major leap of imagination for them to trust the regulatory officials of the other fourteen member states as well as Brussels. So I think the existence of a single market which exposes Europeans to health and safety risks produced from anywhere in Europe, and on one hand the contrast with the lack of public confidence in European regulation, has I think created a major problem.
It seems to me that EU regulatory policy is moving in two somewhat contradictory directions. On one hand, through the precautionary principal, it is becoming much more responsive to public concerns and public perceptions, and at the same time, through the process of judicial review both in Brussels and at the global level thorough the World Trade Organization, there is a greater emphasis being put on scientific risk assessment.
It seems to me that the critical issue is not so much the current generation of GMOs but the future generation of GMOs which are likely to have a substantial market, particularly in the third world, and I think the real question is whether European or American regulatory preferences will affect, which will be decisive in affecting the receptiveness of countries in the world to the next generation of GMO products.
I don't see any movement towards a convergence of European and American policies toward GMOs or across a whole host of regulatory areas. I think there are different priorities, different interest groups, different cultures. I don't think there is any reason to expect that Europeans and Americans will worry about similar risks. I think these differences are likely to persist, and I see no particular problem with that.
* Mindfully.org
note: What exactly the added message in the sidebar means with respect
to Checkbiotech is up to the reader. However, we feel that the concept of
biotechnology will remain repulsive as this is not something that humans have
the capability of understanding sufficiently at present. And Mindfully.org does
not foresee a time in which humans will possess such required knowledge to
justify mucking about in the genes of any living organism. We feel that
the state of academic affairs is quite sad in that such subjects are pawned off
as learned and necessary to the longevity of the human race when quite the
opposite is true. On a long-term basis, they are contributing to the demise of
our own species as well as that of most others. One can have no idea of the
outcome of such bastardizations of the gene pool because there is no precedent.
Quite literally, it is impossible to predict outcome. Little devils are created
that must be ignored. Those little inconsistencies and deformities that occur
along the way must be ignored in order to continue. Biotech is about monetary profit.
In spite of the sugar-coated promises of good health, none of this would be
going on if not for the promises of great wealth. In general, if the funders of biotechnology
had no promise of return on their capital, they would most likely not invest in
it. There may or may not be a desire on the part of investors to benefit
our health, but we feel that the most important issue in deciding whether to
invest lies in the possibility of monetary gain with little or no regard to
safety. And there can be absolutely no assurance of safety when it comes to
biotechnology. The promises of safety and benefit made by the representatives of
such organizations are merely wishful thinking. If ever there was a Pandora's
Box, biotech is it. Also, please read Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's novel in which she describes the goings on at the University of Ingolstadt, Germany.
Are we prepared to go out and shoot down the little devils that biotech creates?
We think not! So it's best not to muck about there.
On a related subject, the University of California Berkeley is engaged in a big
deal with BP, formerly known as British Petroleum. BP has changed its corporate
name, but it's still a petroleum company. Read more about the BP
Deal at U.C. Berkeley.
|
To
send Mindfully.org your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |
