Samenvatting

De onderhandelingen tussen de EU en de VS (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - TTIP) begonnen in 2013. Ze hebben als doel het slechten van handelsbarrières en het harmoniseren en standaardiseren van voorschriften. In de thesis wordt onderzocht, in hoeverre de regelgeving in de EU op het gebied van genetisch gemodificeerd organismen (GMOs) beïnvloed zal worden door die in de Verenigde Staten. Dit is gedaan door middel van een literatuuronderzoek en interviews met hooggeplaatste verantwoordelijken bij b.v. Monsanto, de handelsvertegenwoordiging van de VS, Greenpeace, een lid van het kabinet van de Europese handelscommissaris en belanghebbenden in de Europese bio-industrie.

TTIP was launched in 2013 and aims at tackling non-tariff trade barriers and foster regulatory
cooperation between the US and the EU. The focus of this research is to measure the extent to which the TTIP agreement is going to result in an alignment of EU GMO policy with that of the US.
The literature review provides a critical background to the key issues. As to the definition, the term GMO will be used as referring to organisms that serve for the production of food and feed into which foreign genes have been inserted. Benefits of GMOs relate mainly to farmer efficiency and product qualities. Risk can be classified as environmental risks, those to humans and animals and ethical concerns. Turning to the GMO regulatory frameworks, developments were quite similar across the Atlantic until the 1990s. However, the legislation that is in place now is characterized by fundamentally different approaches. US legislation sets out that GMO assessment is based on a product-based approach that views GMOs as being substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. In the EU a process-based approach is chosen that views GMOs as effectively different from their non-GM counterparts and the precautionary principle is applied, which allows banning a product when there is not sufficient evidence to guarantee its safety. A safeguard clause furthermore allows individual Member States to provisionally ban or restrict GMOs on their territory and labeling of GM products is made obligatory. The authors that were investigated in the literature review agree
that there is a politicization of the EU regulatory process and that non-compliance with established timelines results in GMO applications getting stuck in the process. The last part of the literature review, ‘EU-US Trade Relations over GMOs’ points out that the trade of GMOs is currently disrupted and that this adversely affects various parties in the US as well as in the EU. It continues to explain reasons for these diverging policies and thus the trade disruption, including cultural factors with European preferences towards somewhat more ‘natural’ foods, a ‘romantic’ perception of agriculture and the emergence of risk-adverse policies in Europe. Proposed solutions to the transatlantic trade dispute mainly relate to mutual tolerance and proper application of the rules, rather than suggesting regulatory convergence. Overall, the literature review revealed a gap of research concerning TTIP’s potential effects on GMO policies. Hence, the research objective is to help fill this gap.
The method that was chosen to do so was obtaining data through the qualitative mixed method approach, gathering data by both carrying out six extensive elite-interviews with relevant stakeholder groups as well as desk research to substantiate these. The answer to the research question will be deliberated in light of stakeholder discussion of policy alignment as well as an evaluation of previous negotiation documents.
This research produced a number of key findings. Firstly, it became apparent that the different
stakeholder groups have different levels of risk perceptions and positions on GMOs that are at
conflict. Secondly, it was discovered that the stakeholders have different roles in TTIP negotiations that determine the extent to which they can influence their outcome. Relating to the opportunities stakeholders see in TTIP, they named mutual economic growth, a normalization of trade, and strengthening common values that result in a proper GMO assessment. Some look at TTIP more critically, perceiving a risk related to a weakening of standards. It is generally unlikely that the GMO issue will pose a threat to an overall agreement as it only constitutes a minor part. However, high expectations about a normalization of trade on the US side seem to put pressure on the EU to properly
apply their system. Regarding EU risk assessment, stakeholders were to a great extent happy with the science-based assessment carried out by EFSA. Most stakeholders expressed their greatest critique on the risk management stage, pointing to current non-compliance with EU law and timelines. Abuses of the precautionary principle are moreover criticized. In contrast to the others, the activist group condemns the system itself, stressing that EFSA is asked to provide an assessment based on insufficient scientific data. As to the outcomes of TTIP, most stakeholders agreed that an actual change in policy and regulation is unlikely to occur. Stakeholder discussions hint to TTIP as being a likely catalyzer to strengthen the application of rules within the existing EU framework.
This dissertation came to the conclusion that the TTIP agreement is very unlikely to result in a GMO policy alignment in the EU with that of the US, due to a deeply entrenched policy framework and a fundamentally different risk culture. However, both the willingness to negotiate the issue within TTIP and pressures to end the trade disruption are likely to reinforce a more accurate and timely application of the EU system and furthermore establish an increased flow and exchange of information. If a substantial policy alignment were ever to be achieved, a bottom-up approach would have to be applied.

De thesis schetst de verschillende aanpak t.a.v GMOs in de VS en de EU, en belicht de methodes die gebruikt worden om tot een risikobeoordeling te komen. Het is belangrijk de verschillende (cultureel bepaalde) risikoculturen te begrijpen die nu op elkaar botsen bij de TTIP onderhandelingen. De aanpak in de VS van produktveiligheid kan gekenschetst worden met een "Ja, tenzij uit onderzoek blijkt dat het produkt onveilig of schadelijk is" terwijl in de EU het precautionary principle wordt gehanteerd, dat zegt: "Ja, mits bewezen is dat het produkt veilig is".

Dit cultuurverschil heeft geleid tot een politisering van het toelatingsproces in de EU en tot enorme vertragingen in de behandeling van GMO toelatingsaanvragen bij de EU. Geen van beide kanten is momenteel bereid, zijn eigen regels aan te passen aan die van de ander. De voorspelling (die voor een groot deel van de bevolking slecht verteerbaar zal zijn) is dat op korte termijn de druk op de EU om de onderhandelingen (waarvan GMOs maar een klein deel uitmaken) succesvol af te sluiten NIET zal leiden tot aanpassing van de EU regels, maar WEL tot een toezegging de bestaande EU regels t.a.v. GMOs consequent toe te passen. De TTIP onderhandelingen zijn dus een katalysator die de EU dwingen zijn eigen regels correct toe te passen. Op de wat langere termijn - nadat wederzijds vertrouwen is opgebouwd - wordt convergentie van de regelgeving over GMOs mogelijk geacht.