Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Conventional, and Organic Crops in the European Union: National Implementation

Abstract

Within the framework imposed at European Union level, Member States have taken advantage of the considerable discretion which they are accorded when implementing coexistence measures at national level. This divergence is examined by reference to four Member States: France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. While there may be important similarities in approach (for example, in all four Member States the choice has been taken to regulate by legislative means), there are also notable differences. In France, the emphasis is on freedom of cropping, with the result that actions seeking to impose GM-free zones, whether initiated by organic producers or local authorities, have met with little success. In Italy, until recently, there has been a legislative impasse by reason of a battle for competence between the state and the regions. In Spain, a draft Royal Decree has been promulgated, but it remains to be implemented, and several of its measures have already proved controversial. In the United Kingdom, the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales have shown marked hostility to GMOs, while, more generally, the slow pace of legislative progress may be attributed to the absence of immediate intent to proceed to commercialization of GM crops.

The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms on a Local Level: Exploring the Determinants of Cultivation Bans

“…Altogether, the German 'co-existence' regulations comprise strict ex-ante regulations and strict ex-post liability rules. Thus, the regulatory framework on GMOs in place in Germany is more prohibitive when compared to most other member states [7,20]. Together, the three policy instruments were intended to guarantee 'peaceful co-existence' in Germany.…”

“…Research has concentrated on GMO regulatory activities on supranational, national, and regional levels, as well as on the interdependencies between these levels [2,5,[7][8][9][10][11][12]. This study complements previous research by investigating regulatory action on a level of GMO governance that has been scarcely analyzed in this regard yet: the local level.…”

Les juridictions pénales britanniques et françaises face aux anti-OGM : au-delà des différences, une communauté d’esprit

“…Il est donc logique que la Cour d'Orléans balaie les arguments tirés de l'impossibilité ou de l'ineffectivité des actions en réparation et du recours aux assurances, propres, selon les faucheurs, à conforter l'idée d'une nécessité à agir. Pourtant, l'ineffectivité des actions juridictionnelles préventives 47 et l'absence d'assurance voulant couvrir le risque OGM 48 sont réelles et ces carences rendent légitime les interrogations sur la nécessité à agir...…”

“…En fondant leur décision sur l'état des connaissances scientifiques, les juges appliquent le même raisonnement que celui qui prévaut en matière de coexistence 49 : l'autorisation permet de réfuter toute action visant à révéler un risque imminent puisque celui-ci a été évalué et jugé inoffensif. En l'absence de démonstration contraire évidente et incontestable lors du procès, il semble donc que la crédibilité scientifique ressorte de l'analyse scientifique réalisée lors de l'autorisation des OGM.…”