Organic Markets and Trade in the European Union
European markets and consumers prefer organic agricultural products, which creates great opportunities for organic producers in Latin America. In the European Union, the process of assessing the safety of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) relies mostly on state paid scientists, particularly scientists without ties to the interests of the private sector agribusiness industry. For instance, in 1992, the Concentration Unit for Biotechnology in Europe (CUBE) was dissolved because its head figure, Mark Cantley, was under suspicion of being too closely affiliated with industrial interests. Nevertheless, the European Commission and its institutions face the inconvenience of not having final jurisdiction over agricultural regulation because the member states themselves, as sovereign national entities, can decided to opt out of European legislation. This normally occurs against rulings that allow certain GMOs into the market, by the placing of national level bans. Therefore, the European Union tends to be risk averse on GMO rulings. Contrary to the United States, in the European perspective, foods from genetically modified plants bear new risks that have to be assessed. This refers to direct health and environmental risks as well as the indirect effects, which might not be anticipated or perceived for years. This is known as the precautionary principle. Thus, the European Union adopts a precautionary stance and, even though there is no clear set of European values, they adhere to tradition and precedent. Likewise, they focus debate on defining the boundaries of what is to be considered natural and whether GMOs are intrinsically more dangerous than organic products.
Organic Markets and Trade in the European Union
Normally, rulings in the European Union are unfavorable towards GMOs because of the attitude of European citizens. Europeans feel extremely skeptical about dwelling into what leading figures in the UK, including Prince Charles, referred to as the “realms that belong to God”, as part of an anti-GMO campaign. The situation is further complicated as Europeans seek to find a shared definition of what the common good is to them and their continent. Thus far, they defend traditional ways of agriculture, a traditional definition of what natural or organic means, and a traditional stance of what nature should be. Consequently, the current stance of the European Union is that GMO products are hazardous and ought to be strictly regulated. Similarly, any product containing 1% or more of GM material must be adequately labeled within the European Union.
When the risk-averse, decision-making process of the European Union is compared to that of the United States, some argue that it is easier for the US to approve GMOs because the state apparatus in this country does not carry the burden of maintaining the public health. Meanwhile, in almost every county of the European Union there is public healthcare, which means that the consumption of unhealthy GMOs entails a larger economic burden. Finally, there is the challenge of education and public knowledge, not only in Europe, but also in North America. Surveys demonstrate that the average consumer is still unaware of the main differences between organic versus genetically modified products, even though much progress has been made towards public awareness in this regard throughout the last decade.