This article examines GMOs and biodiversity, focusing on the conflict between Monsanto and France. We explore the discretion EU member states have in health and environmental protection and assess the potential risks of GMOs.
Definition, history and evolution of GMO’s
Biotechnology and genetic engineering advanced significantly in the 1990’s, enabling scientists to insert foreign genes into plant genomes. Genetically modified foods, based on GMOs, are artificially created life forms that do not occur naturally and whose release into ecosystems is irreversible.
The first successful recombinant DNA experiment was conducted in 1973 by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer. By 1994, genetically modified tomatoes, soybeans, corn, and canola had entered the market. Duarte & Silva argue that GMOs mark a turning point in agriculture, reflecting the co-evolution of natural and social technologies.
Potential risks
However, unfortunately, there are also risks. There are indications that they can cause skin allergies, and allergenic foods specifically derived from genetic modification may affect approximately 2% of the adult population and 6% of children.
In the issue we are examining, the circulation of MON810 corn, which is resistant to the corn borer (insects), a possible link was found between injuries observed in humans and animals in the pancreas and liver. This corn produces the Bt toxin, which repels insects.
Approaches of the EU, the CJEU and France
The first legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically modified microorganisms was established in 1990 with Directives 90/220 and 90/219, respectively. These directives allowed the approval of 18 GMOs for marketing, use, processing, and cultivation within the EEC from 1991. However, there was no legislation regulating foods derived from GMOs before the adoption of Regulation 1829/2003.
The purpose of Directive 18/2001/EC, which replaces Directive 90/220, is to harmonize the legislation and procedures of member states for the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. Unlike the previous Directive, this one includes the precautionary principle in its application, as well as a limited (up to 10 years) duration for the approval of the marketing of the relevant products.
On May 4, 2007, Monsanto Europe requested the renewal of the market authorization for MON 810 corn. By an order on December 5, 2007, the French Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries suspended the authorization for the transfer to the final user and the use of MON 810 corn seeds within the national territory, pending the publication of legislation regarding GMOs and until February 9, 2008. On February 6, 2008, Monsanto appealed for the annulment of this order before the French Conseil d’État (Council of State).
The Conseil d’État referred all the annulment requests of the specific Ministerial Decision, with a preliminary question, to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).
In its judgment of September 8, 2011, and in response to the above questions, the Court ruled that a state can restrict or prohibit the use of a specific GMO within its territory. In this case, the member state is required to thoroughly justify its decision by presenting a comprehensive review of the environmental risk assessment. Additionally, it must clarify how and to what extent the terms of consent should be modified or, if necessary, whether the consent should be revoked altogether. Furthermore, the member state should provide the newly gathered data upon which its decision is based, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.
To what extent is state intervention imposed?
Under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and Article 34 of Regulation 1829/2003, emergency measures must be proportional, temporary, and implemented only if the European Commission fails to act. They aim to manage risks until further scientific evaluations are available.
Despite the CJEU’s response, France banned MON810 again in 2014. This ban was overturned in 2016 by the Conseil d’État, but Directive 2015/412 later allowed France to opt out of GMO cultivation.
In 2016, an open letter to the European Commission raised concerns about the spread of teosinte, a wild ancestor of maize in Spain, which can hybridize with MON810.
The debate over GMOs in the EU underscores the challenge of balancing scientific innovation, biodiversity protection, and public health concerns. While legal and scientific advancements continue, uncertainties remain, highlighting the need for transparent regulatory frameworks and harmonized risk assessments.
Ultimately, the GMO debate exemplifies the intricate balance between scientific innovation, environmental preservation, and public health concerns. The MON810 case in France highlights the challenges EU member states face in reconciling national priorities with collective regulations. Despite the legal and scientific advances made in this field, uncertainties surrounding GMOs persist, particularly regarding their ecological impact and potential health risks. As such, the precautionary measures taken by countries like France and Greece reflect a cautious approach to safeguarding biodiversity and human welfare. Moving forward, it remains crucial for the EU to harmonize regulatory frameworks, promote transparent risk assessments, and encourage dialogue between stakeholders to ensure that decisions in this field are both scientifically grounded and socially responsible.
Sources :
