The so-called ‘moratorium’ on the licensing of new genetically modified (GM) products by the European Union 1998–2004: a study in ambiguity

Abstract

Abstract It is commonly held that a moratorium on the approval of new genetically modified (GM) products was in place in the European Union (EU) between 1998 and 2004. The substantive issues raised by this so-called moratorium have stirred up considerable political interest, both inside and outside the EU, culminating in a challenge issued to the EU through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) by the United States, Canada and Argentina. However, the status and time-frame of the moratorium have not been much discussed, and in this article we seek to fill this gap, by analysing the status and time-frame of the moratorium through the lens of two competing theoretical frameworks – intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. We find that the moratorium is a highly ambiguous phenomenon, with three alternative interpretations. The first interpretation is that while the origin of the moratorium is explained by intergovernmentalism, its end is explained by supranationalism. The second interpretation, which is based wholly on intergovernmentalism, is that the moratorium is effectively still in place today. The third interpretation, which is based wholly on supranationalism, is that the moratorium never really existed at all. The result of the WTO challenge may well hinge on how the panel views these alternative interpretations of the moratorium. Notes 1. Jürgen Trittin was President of the Environment Council because Germany held the Council Presidency for the first half of 1999. 2. In October 1998 two biotech carnation varieties were the last GM plants to be approved under directive 90/220, although it would be another eight months before the Council of Environment Ministers meeting that 'established' the moratorium. From this point onwards (October 1998), the Commission and Member States stopped all approvals of GM crops and plants and ceased all issuance of licences. Strictly speaking, therefore, we might say that this is the beginning of the de facto moratorium, for if it is indeed de facto, it exists from the moment no more crops are authorised. Both Rosendal (Citation2005: 86) and Bernauer (Citation2003: 45) claim that the moratorium began in 1998: Bernauer dating it from April 1998 (when the last agricultural food authorisations took place – a swede variety and three varieties of maize). 3. Rosendal (Citation2005: 86) puts Austria in the first group, and claims that Belgium and Germany later joined it. Bernauer (Citation2003: 45–6) also puts Austria in the first group. 4. Bernauer (Citation2003: 46) omits the Netherlands from the second group. 5. Attwooll (Citation2004) appears to affirm that the moratorium only applied to crops: 'there was an informal acceptance between Member States that until much more research had been done on GMs, there would not be any commercial planting'. 6. Austria has banned three varieties of maize (Bt 176, MON 810 and T25); Germany and Luxemburg have banned Bt 176 maize; and France has banned Swede rape MS1/RF1 and Topas 19/2. 7. The first declaration (signed by five Member States) seeks 'to have any new authorisations for growing and placing on the market suspended'; while the second declaration (signed by seven other Member States) affirms that the signatories will 'not authorise the placing on the market of any GMOs until it is demonstrated that there is no adverse effect on the environment and human health'. Both these formulations imply that the Member States include food in their conceptions of GMOs.