b'THE RISK CORNER BY: DAVID ZARUKTIME TO PULL THE PLUG ON THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLET wenty years is a long time in theunimaginable, the hazard-based approachto think that the European Commission wilderness.mysteriously disappears.will be able to continue their open-door Since 2001 and the EuropeanThere is often confusion on when thepolicy to reconsidering NPBTs. I sus-Environment Agencys publication, Lateprecautionary principle is a useful policypect anti-technology forces within the Lessons from Early Warnings, thetool and when it can be, well, inconven- Commission will soon move to add haz-European Commission has applied anient. When a handful of people sufferedard-based, precautionary restrictions on activist interpretation of the precaution- blood clots after a COVID-19 vaccine,any NPBT authorisations, rendering the ary principle. In that time, there has beenEU Commissioners jumped to deployentire process a tragic waste of time.a constant exodus of scientists from thethe precautionary principleuntil theAnd what then should industry European Union, innovative technologiesEuropean Medicines Agency interveneddo? Say farewell to more researchers? have been restricted and trust in sciencewith common sense. But it was too late;Develop more organic seeds? Close more has declined. public trust was lost. EU operations?Late Lessons reversed the burdenThe EU has no guidance on how toThe European participatory strat-of proof. Instead of identifying a risk, reg- apply the precautionary principle. Thisegy, set out in the 2001 White Paper on ulators demanded that scientists provebecomes obvious when we look at seedEuropean Governance, considers EU pol-substances were safe (safety and cer- breeding. icies as only legitimised after wide-scale tainty being emotional, relative percep- stakeholder engagement. tions). Combined with the hazard-basedPRECAUTION AND SEEDIn the mid-2000s, many Brussels-regulatory approach (where levels ofBREEDING based NGOs threatened to abandon the exposure are not factored in), the EUHypocrisy shines brightly with EU policyengagement process (walking out of regulatory process became an impossi- on seed breeding. Genetically engineeredmost European Technology Platforms), ble minefield for innovative technologysubstances could not meet the (impossi- until they had more influence in how approvals. ble) zero-risk precautionary standards,the game was played. Significant public In these two lost decades, Europeansleading to an undermining of public trustfunds have been given to NGOs to ensure can no longer manage risks and procurein the technology. The Court of Justice ofthey have the means to be involved in the societal benefits, opting instead to managethe European Union declared in 2018 thatconsultative processes. Risk manage-uncertainty by removing any substancesnew plant breeding techniques (NPBTs)ment was largely replaced with uncer-and processes that cannot be proven to bewere to be considered under the restric- tainty management (precaution) and the completely safe. This incapacity was evi- tive 2001 GMO Directive, but they thenhazard-based approach started being dent when the coronavirus pandemic hitwent through some mental gymnastics toapplied, invalidating most exposure data Europe. Rather than reducing exposuresconsider any mutagenesis done prior toand research findings. The game is now and protecting the most vulnerable, reg- 2001 as safe. I suppose European author- fixed in the NGOs favour.ulators immediately imposed blanket pre- ities could not imagine having to banI strongly recommend that, if the cautionary lockdowns as the only meansdurum wheat (used in most Italian pastaEuropean Commission reintroduces the to keep people safe.and genetically modified in the 1960s). hazard-based precautionary approach Unlike uncertainty managementThe European Commission, finalis- during present NPBT consultations, (precaution), risk management finds theing its Green Deal Farm2Fork strategy,the seed industry and research insti-means to keep populations safer (reducinghas accepted that yields will dramaticallytutions should walk out of the process. exposures to as low as reasonably achieva- decline as they move to phase out largeBoycott any activities until the European ble). There is no such thing as safe. numbers of agricultural technologies.Commission develops a clear strategy on They may now move to, once again, beingthe role of precaution within the larger INCONSISTENT APPLICATIONS selective in their application of precau- risk management framework. If we took a hazard-based approach andtion with NPBTs. Is this a victory of deftThe legitimacy of EU regulations demanded 100% safe substances, thenlobbying skills? Or an opportunity arisingdepends on stakeholder engagement. coffee, mobile phones and cars would haveout of a massive Green Deal policy fail- Without industry and research communi-to be banned under the precautionaryure which will stubbornly still be imple- ties at the table, the European Commission principle. They are not though becausemented? will be forced to re-evaluate its use of such precaution is applied selectively (basedinnovation-toxic policy tools. on pressure from activist lobby groups).HARSH MEDICINE Its time to put precaution in its Where benefits are clear and their removalI have been active too long in Brusselsplace. 22IEUROPEAN SEEDIEUROPEAN-SEED.COM'