Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Late Blight-Resistant Genetically Modified Potatoes

The commercialization of genetically modified (GM) crops remains highly contested in the European Union (EU). While research has mainly focused on public and consumer opinions, few studies have investigated farmers’ reactions towards such crops. This study aims to determine farmers’ willingness to adopt a late blight-resistant (LBR) GM potato cultivar (Bintje) in Flanders, Belgium (n = 384). The findings demonstrate that more than half (54.7%) of the farmers have the intention to adopt this GM potato if it becomes available. Farmers’ willingness to adopt is mainly influenced by ethical concerns about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (negative) and perceived economic benefits of LBR GM potatoes (positive). Knowledge about GM technology decreases the likelihood of being indifferent, as compared to being willing to adopt or being opposed. As such, efforts to improve knowledge alone would not be considered an effective strategy to improve adoption rates among farmers. Socio-economic concerns about GMOs, environmental benefit perceptions of LBR GM potatoes, and socio-demographic and farm variables were not significant as potential determinants of farmers’ likelihood to adopt this GM potato. Our findings lend support to a potentially favorable climate to introduce this GM potato in Flanders, Belgium, an EU region where opt-out measures to restrict cultivation of approved GM crops were not taken.

From Procrastination to Procedural Perfectionism – A Short Story of the Long Amflora Authorisation Process

In this judgment, the General Court annulled two Commission decisions authorising the placing on the market of the GM potato Amflora. The Court did not base its decision on the arguments put forward by the applicant Hungary, which contested the underlying scientific assessment of the European Food Safety Authority, but found of its own motion a breach of an essential procedural requirement in the applicable comitology procedure.Whilst the Court’s proactive role in scrutinising the Commission's behaviour in the authorisation procedure of GMOs is to be welcomed, the Court arguably missed an opportunity to exercise its role as a deliberative forum for normative controversies underlying the scientific risk assessment.Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, OJ 2001 L 106;Regulation 1829/2003 on geneticallymodified food and feed,OJ 2003 L 268; Article 5 of Commission Decision 1999/468 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, OJ 1999 L 184.

The Member States’ Long and Winding Road to Partial Regulatory Autonomy in Cultivating Genetically Modified Crops in the EU

Member States wishing to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have always been a minority in the EU. Only eight out of twenty-seven have experienced transgenic agriculture. Throughout the years, the opposition to this form of farming has become a genuinely transnational phenomenon given that many regions of different European countries declared themselves GMO-free. Moreover, Member States such as Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, Poland and, most recently, Hungary officially banned transgenic agriculture within their borders altogether. France and Germany suspended the cultivation of GM maize MON 810, respectively in 2008 and 2009.In addition, the EU has previously authorized only two GM crops: GM maize MON 810 (authorization renewed in 2008) and GM potato EH92-527-1 (2010), known as the ‘Amflora potato.’ The cautious approach towards transgenic farming is also witnessed by the long and contested process of renewal of the permit to cultivate GM maize MON 810 and the issue of the authorization for the Amflora potato.