Why Science Cannot Tame Politics: The New EU Comitology Rules and the Centralised Authorisation Procedure of GMOs
The centralised authorisation of GMOs in the European Union (EU) has received considerable academic attention in recent years, partly due to the fact that Member States have not been able to agree on authorisation decisions in the comitology committee. As a consequence, these authorisations are given by the European Commission. These decisions are invariably in favour of authorisation despite the fact that Member States had been divided on this issue. Apart from the on-going discussions on a possible reform of the GMO authorisation (allowing for national restrictions or prohibitions), the new comitology rules brought about by the Lisbon Treaty are of equal importance as they might affect the authorisation of GMOs. In this article we discuss some of the changes to comitology and present empirical material on the first authorisation decisions after the entering into force of the new comitology rules. By drawing on delegation theory we will argue that, for the time being, the level of politicisation of GMO authorisation is unlikely to change.
The regulation of risks in the European Union (EU) has received considerable academic attention in recent years, addressing intricate issues pertaining to risk assessment and risk management, the precautionary principle, science-based policy making but also institutional design and legitimacy of decision making under scientific uncertainty. A key concern in this respect is the regulatory regime concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) which has been widely seen as a regulatory failure. This failure is ascribedtodifferent (yet inter-related) aspects. The risk assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is said to be intolerant of the related scientific uncertainty. The diverging stances of Member States on the GMO issue render this uncertainty problematic, because it makes EFSA the de-facto decision maker for an issue which is normatively charged and politically salient. This is particularly visible in the authorisation procedure of the socalled Food and Feed Regulation. Neither the responsible comitology committee nor the Council of Ministers, in both of which the Member States are represented, have been able to form a decisive opinion on whether to grant or reject authorisation. This leaves the responsibility of decision making with the European Commission which by granting authorisation in all cases has exclusively followed the positive assessment of EFSA. As a consequence Member States have begun to invoke safeguard clauses to unilaterally ban GMOs. This puts into question the efficiency and legitimacy of the current GMO regime because it hampers the smooth functioning of the internal market and assigns de facto decision making on a salient issue to an unelected, regulatory body.
| Copyright: | © Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH | |
| Quelle: | Issue 03/2013 (September 2013) | |
| Seiten: | 8 | |
| Preis inkl. MwSt.: | € 41,65 | |
| Autor: | Christoph Klika  Jinhee Kim Dr. Esther Versluis | |
| Artikel weiterleiten | In den Warenkorb legen
| Artikel kommentieren |
Diese Fachartikel könnten Sie auch interessieren:
Reporting of food waste in the EU – Results of current estimates in Germany
© Lehrstuhl für Abfallverwertungstechnik und Abfallwirtschaft der Montanuniversität Leoben (11/2020)
In February 2019, the German Federal Cabinet adopted the 'National Strategy for Reducing Food Waste', setting a framework for the future direction of this initiative. Among other things, it stipulated that an inter-ministerial "Indicator 12.3 Working Group" should prepare the data bases and methods for nationwide balancing of food waste generation (baseline). Based on existing 2015 data, this status quo analysis will be used as a starting point to agree on milestones for the respective sectors.
Circular economy from an SDG perspective: A multi-stakeholder process for developing policy options
© Lehrstuhl für Abfallverwertungstechnik und Abfallwirtschaft der Montanuniversität Leoben (11/2020)
Based on a longitudinal case study (the UniNEtZ project in Austria), which includes a multi-stakeholder involvement, we investigate the process of developing CE policies for the Austrian Federal Government from an SDG perspective. Within this context, the main research question is how multi-stakeholder processes can enable the development of CE policy options. The study thus contributes to providing a structured approach of how different stake-holders from academia, industry, research funding agencies and government collaborate, how knowledge is created and transferred within this multi-stakeholder process, and what outputs, outcomes and impacts can be realized at the national level in the context of developing CE policies using an SDG framework.
The circular packaging design guideline and holistic sustainability assessment in circular economy
© Lehrstuhl für Abfallverwertungstechnik und Abfallwirtschaft der Montanuniversität Leoben (11/2020)
The FH Campus Wien Circular Packaging Design Guideline provide recommendations for circular design for the whole supply chain. Circular design is a necessary prerequisite to achieve the goals of the European Circular Economy Package which requires full recyclability of packaging by 2030. Circular packaging should re-duce resource consumption and environmental impacts of packaging. The assessment of packaging sustainability requires the calculation of direct and indirect environmental impacts and circularity at the same time. A method for holistic sustainability assessment of packaging has been proposed by FH Campus Wien and developed in an ECR-working group (Efficient Consumer Response) with the participation of a number of companies along the whole supply chain (brand owners, retailers, packaging manufacturers and packaging systems).
LIFE: Das Umwelt-Förderprogramm der EU – ein Überblick über ein Finanzierungsinstrument mit breitem Themenspektrum
© Springer Vieweg | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH (8/2019)
Seit über 25 Jahren fördert die EU im Rahmen des LIFE-Programms Projekte des Umwelt- und Klimaschutzes. Das Finanzierungsinstrument hat zum Ziel, umweltfreundliche, innovative Produkte, Verfahren und Dienstleistungen sowie Best Practice in Europa zu etablieren und die entsprechende Politik und Verwaltungspraxis weiterzuentwickeln. Es unterstützt Vorhaben aus vielen Bereichen wie Arten- und Biotopschutz, biologische Vielfalt, Klimaanpassung, Luftqualität, Kreislaufwirtschaft, Chemikalien, Lärm – und nicht zuletzt Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft. Historie, Schwerpunkte und Besonderheiten von LIFE sowie Projektbeispiele werden vorgestellt.
Aktuelle Entwicklungen im europäischen und nationalen Deponierecht
© Universität Stuttgart - ISWA (3/2019)
Warum befassen wir uns heute noch mit neuen Regelungen und Entwicklungen von Deponien, einer so genannten „end-of-pipe-Technologie“? Bereits 1999 wurde darüber diskutiert, dass 2020 keine Deponien mehr erforderlich sein würden. Dies beruhte allerdings auf einer missverstandenen Äußerung des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt im Zusammenhang mit der Einführung der mechanisch-biologischen Abfallbehandlung.
