IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/270183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EU Member States’ Voting for Authorizing Genetically Engineered Crops: a Regulatory Gridlock

Author

Listed:
  • Smart, Richard D.
  • Blum, Matthias
  • Wesseler, Justus

Abstract

Several authors suggest a gridlock of the European Union’s (EU’s) approval process for genetically engineered (GE) crops. We analyse the voting behaviour of EU Member States (MSs) for voting results from 2003 to 2015 on the approval of GE crops to test for a gridlock; no reliable data are available pre-2003 - a time which included the EU’s moratorium on GE crops. After the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has given a favourable opinion on the safety of a GE crop, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) votes on the application. If the SCFCAH reaches no decision, the Appeal Committee (AC) (pre the Treaty of Lisbon: the Council) votes on the application; if no decision is reached here, the final decision is left to the European Commission. All EU Member States (MSs) are represented on both committees; decisions are made by a qualified majority (QM) voting system, the rules of which have changed over time. Our data include 50 events; and 61 ballots at the SCFCAH and 57 ballots at the Council / AC. A QM has been achieved once only at the SCFCAH, but never at Council. At Council / AC level, Austria and Croatia have consistently voted against an approval, while The Netherlands has always supported approvals. All other MSs showed differences in their voting decisions at the SCFCAH and Council / AC level at least once. MS-fixed-effects are the major factors explaining the voting results supporting the gridlock hypothesis, while crop characteristics and crop use play no apparent role in MSs' voting behaviour. We maintain that a QM is unlikely following the latest directive for MSs to ‘opt-out’ on GE crop cultivation in their territories. Einige wissenschaftliche Autoren berichten, dass das Genehmigungsverfahren für genetisch veränderte Anbaukulturen in der Europäischen Union ins Stocken geraten sei. Wir untersuchen das Abstimmungsverhalten und die Abstimmungsergebnisse von EU-Mitgliedsstaaten im Rahmen dieser Genehmigungsverfahren im Zeitraum 2003 bis 2015, um diesen „Stau“ zu erforschen; für den Zeitraum vor 2003 liegen u.a. aufgrund des EU-Moratoriums keine verlässlichen Daten vor. Nachdem die Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) neue Anbaukulturen für sicher befunden hat, stimmen Mitglieder des Ständigen Ausschusses für die Lebensmittelkette und die Tiergesundheit (SCFCAH) über deren Zulassung ab. Sollte in diesem Ausschuss keine Entscheidung hinsichtlich einer Deregulierung getroffen werden, so stimmt der Berufungsausschuss (Appeal Committee bzw. The Council) über die Regulierung ab; sollte auch hier keine Entscheidung gefällt werden, liegt die endgültige Entscheidung bei der Europäischen Kommission. In beiden Ausschüssen sind alle EU-Mitgliedsstaaten vertreten; Entscheidungen sind einer qualifizierten Mehrheit unterworfen, wobei die entsprechenden Regeln im Zeitverlauf geändert wurden. Unser Datensatz erstreckt sich auf 50 Anbaukulturen, über die in 61 Abstimmungen durch SCFCAH und in 57 Abstimmungen durch den Berufungsausschuss befunden wurde. Unsere Analyse zeigt, dass eine qualifizierte Mehrheit lediglich in einem einzigen Fall in einer SCFCAH-Abstimmung, aber nie im Berufungsausschuss erreicht wurde. Bei Abstimmungen im Berufungsausschuss stimmten Österreich und Kroatien durchweg gegen eine Deregulierung, während die Niederlande alle Anträge unterstützten. Alle anderen Mitgliedsstaaten wiesen nicht immer ein konsistentes Abstimmungsverhalten in SCFCAH und dem Berufungsausschuss auf. Die Resultate unserer empirischen Analyse legen nahe, dass Ländereffekte den größten Erklärungsanteil für den genannten „Stau“ ausmachen; Eigenschaften einer Anbaukultur und deren Verwendungszweck scheinen lediglich eine untergeordnete Rolle für die Entscheidungen der Mitgliedsstaaten zu spielen. Eine qualifizierte Mehrheit erscheint unwahrscheinlich angesichts der jüngsten Direktive, die Mitgliedsstaaten erlaubt, auf ihrem jeweiligen Staatsgebiet den Anbau von genetisch veränderten Anbaukulturen zu untersagen.

Suggested Citation

  • Smart, Richard D. & Blum, Matthias & Wesseler, Justus, 2015. "EU Member States’ Voting for Authorizing Genetically Engineered Crops: a Regulatory Gridlock," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:270183
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.270183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/270183/files/3_Smart2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/270183/files/3_Smart2.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.270183?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muhlbock, Monika & Tosun, Jale, 2015. "Deciding over controversial issues: Voting behavior in the Council and the European Parliament on genetically modified organisms," GMCC-15: Seventh GMCC, November 17-20, 2015, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 211480, International Conference on Coexistence between Genetically Modified (GM) and non-GM based Agricultural Supply Chains (GMCC).
    2. Wesseler, Justus & Zilberman, David, 2014. "The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 724-742, December.
    3. Vogel, David, 2003. "The Hare and the Tortoise Revisited: The New Politics of Consumer and Environmental Regulation in Europe," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 557-580, October.
    4. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Kaufman, James & Miller, Douglas, 2014. "Potential economic impacts of zero thresholds for unapproved GMOs: The EU case," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 146-157.
    5. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    6. Alonso-Meijide, J.M. & Bilbao, J.M. & Casas-Méndez, B. & Fernández, J.R., 2009. "Weighted multiple majority games with unions: Generating functions and applications to the European Union," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 530-544, October.
    7. Wesseler, Justus, 2014. "Biotechnologies and agrifood strategies: opportunities, threats and economic implications," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(3), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Designing the Voting System for the Council of the European Union," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(3-4), pages 437-464, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenjing Zhang & Jianhong Xue & Henk Folmer & Khadim Hussain, 2019. "Perceived Risk of Genetically Modified Foods Among Residents in Xi’an, China: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Steven Haggblade & Bart Minten & Carl Pray & Thomas Reardon & David Zilberman, 2017. "The Herbicide Revolution in Developing Countries: Patterns, Causes, and Implications," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(3), pages 533-559, July.
    3. Justus Wesseler & Gijs Kleter & Marthe Meulenbroek & Kai P. Purnhagen, 2023. "EU regulation of genetically modified microorganisms in light of new policy developments: Possible implications for EU bioeconomy investments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 839-859, June.
    4. Wesseler, Justus & Banse, Martin & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Introduction Special Issue “The Political Economy of the Bioeconomy”," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    5. Richard D. Smart & Matthias Blum & Justus Wesseler, 2017. "Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 182-198, February.
    6. Castellari, Elena & Soregaroli, Claudio & Venus, Thomas J. & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "Food processor and retailer non-GMO standards in the US and EU and the driving role of regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-37.
    7. Shao, Qianqian & Drabik, Dusan & Gouse, Marnus & Wesseler, Justus, 2019. "Food self-sufficiency and GM regulation under conflicting interests: the case of GM maize in South Africa," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 59(1), October.
    8. Richard Danvers Smart & Matthias Blum & Justus Wesseler, 2016. "Trends in Genetically Engineered Crops' Approval Times in the United States and the European Union," Economics Working Papers 16-03, Queen's Management School, Queen's University Belfast.
    9. Kai Purnhagen & Justus Wesseler, 2021. "EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1621-1637, December.
    10. Alessandro Bonanno & Valentina C. Materia & Thomas Venus & Justus Wesseler, 2017. "The Plant Protection Products (PPP) Sector in the European Union: A Special View on Herbicides," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(3), pages 575-595, July.
    11. Maximilian Kardung & Kutay Cingiz & Ortwin Costenoble & Roel Delahaye & Wim Heijman & Marko Lovrić & Myrna van Leeuwen & Robert M’Barek & Hans van Meijl & Stephan Piotrowski & Tévécia Ronzon & Johanne, 2021. "Development of the Circular Bioeconomy: Drivers and Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Paulo Ricardo S. Oliveira & Jose Maria F. J. da Silveira & David S. Bullock, 2020. "Innovation in GMOs, technological gap, demand lag, and trade," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 37-58, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Andre Deppermann & Petr Havlík & Hugo Valin & Esther Boere & Mario Herrero & Joost Vervoort & Erik Mathijs, 2018. "The market impacts of shortening feed supply chains in Europe," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(6), pages 1401-1410, December.
    3. Tatjana Brankov & Bojan Matkovski & Marija Jeremić & Stanislav Zekić, 2022. "GMO standards in South East Europe: assessing a GMO index within the process of EU integration," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 253-275, February.
    4. de Faria, Rosane Nunes & Wieck, Christine, 2015. "Empirical evidence on the trade impact of asynchronous regulatory approval of new GMO events," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 22-32.
    5. Kjersti Nes & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel P. Scheitrum, 2022. "Global Food Trade and the Costs of Non‐Adoption of Genetic Engineering," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 70-91, January.
    6. D'ora Gr'eta Petr'oczy & L'aszl'o Csat'o, 2023. "Voting power in the Council of the European Union: A comprehensive sensitivity analysis," Papers 2312.16878, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
    7. Richard Danvers Smart & Matthias Blum & Justus Wesseler, 2016. "Trends in Genetically Engineered Crops' Approval Times in the United States and the European Union," Economics Working Papers 16-03, Queen's Management School, Queen's University Belfast.
    8. Richard D. Smart & Matthias Blum & Justus Wesseler, 2017. "Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 182-198, February.
    9. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    10. Napel, Stefan & Widgrén, Mika, 2017. "Power measurement as sensitivity analysis: a unified approach," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 345, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    11. Falck-Zepeda, Jose & Smyth, Stuart J. & Ludlow, Karinne, 2016. "Zen and the Art of Attaining Conceptual and Implementation Clarity: Socio-economic Considerations, Biosafety and Decision-making," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Zamani, Omid & Chibanda, Craig & Pelikan, Janine, 2021. "Investigating Alternative Poultry Trade Policies in the Context of African Countries: Evidence from Ghana," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315173, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Le Breton, Michel & Montero, Maria & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2012. "Voting power in the EU council of ministers and fair decision making in distributive politics," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 159-173.
    14. Roy, Sonali, 2008. "The exact lower bound for the Coleman index of the power of a collectivity for a special class of simple majority games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 296-300, September.
    15. Yener Kandogan, 2005. "Power analysis of the Nice Treaty on the future of European integration," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(10), pages 1147-1156.
    16. László Á. Kóczy, 2016. "Power Indices When Players can Commit to Reject Coalitions," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 77-91, August.
    17. Justo-Hanani, Ronit & Dayan, Tamar, 2015. "European risk governance of nanotechnology: Explaining the emerging regulatory policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1527-1536.
    18. Watanabe, Chihiro & Naveed, Nasir & Neittaanmäki, Pekka, 2018. "Digital solutions transform the forest-based bioeconomy into a digital platform industry - A suggestion for a disruptive business model in the digital economy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 168-188.
    19. Mika Widgrén, 2003. "Enlargements and the Principles of Designing EU - Decision-Making Procedures," CESifo Working Paper Series 903, CESifo.
    20. Leech, Dennis, 2007. "The Double Majority Voting Rule Of The Eu Reform Treaty As A Democratic Ideal For An Enlarging Union: An Appraisal Using Voting Power Analysis," Economic Research Papers 269773, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:270183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.