Abstract
Democracy, legitimacy, transparency and efficacy: Topics incessantly engaging the EU. The more complicated the topics, all the more complicated are the deliberations between policy maker, expert and stakeholder. As health is one of the most important topics to the EU public, naturally the current COVID-19 pandemic has prevailed political, scientific, media and public discussions on unprecedented level. The older subject of GMOs however features similar characteristics in deliberation, however more accessible for examination owing to a larger body of cumulated and well-arranged literature. This essay aims at adding to a collaborative research agenda addressing deliberative democracy and legitimacy in the EU, as well as helping understand EU decision making dynamics in the light of legitimacy in the face of delicate topics.
Keywords
European Union; democracy; democratic deficit; input - output legitimacy; throughput legitimacy; GMO approval
The EU has “reopened the gene editing box”[1] with a recently published study on the state of GMOs in the EU (EC Study, 2021). This topic features strong public resonance, which can intensify the persistent discussion on democratic legitimacy of the EU. Rising Euroscepticism and nationalism question supranational policymaking, as noted by several scholars (Cengiz, 2018; Murray & Longo, 2018). This development has been catalysed through a series of crises beginning with the financial crisis (Barret, 2018) the migration crisis (Murray, 2018), the recent BREXIT and prevailing pandemic, where EU member states (MS) struggled finding coherent and efficient solutions. This entailed questions on democracy and legitimacy. How can the EU policy makers guarantee input-output and throughput legitimacy for its citizens, when opinions on matters become more and more divided?
The regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the EU has hitherto been restrictive and while the EU has thus far been considered renunciative towards GMOs (see Hilbeck et al., 2020) most recent authorisations (EC DailyNews, 2021) may depict a change of course in EU regulation.
On the basis of EU GMO regulation discussion, this essay aims at exploring reasons for the difficulty of fostering legitimacy and democracy in the face of controversial, complex and emotionalised political topics. A content analysis of secondary literature on underlying research areas and of primary sources of the EU/EC is used to answer the research question with a holistic and comparative approach:
“How do complex and emotionalised policy issues destabilize the balance of legitimacy in EU policy making in emotionalised political and social debates and how can related mechanisms for input legitimacy and efficacy be improved?”
To commence this topic this essay begins with explaining democratic models in the EU. Consequently, current democratic legitimacy problems are presented. Next, a cross section of the European GMO policy is explained. Finally, the unsteady balance-act of GMO regulation and democratic legitimacy is discussed.
Democracy remains popular among 89% of Austrian citizens, like among most EU MS, despite the recently reclining levels of satisfaction with national democratic practice. These findings appearing from the Austrian “Democracy Radar” (ADL, 21.06.2021) show how satisfaction with national democracy has reclined for most EU citizens. Negative trends of democracy satisfaction are correlated to crises, as pointed out by scholars (Smismans, 2019; Cengiz, 2018). The average satisfaction with democratic workings in EU MS stands at 55%, illustrating the challenge of the EU to legitimate its democratic principles, while citizens consider democracy the best form of governance (ADL, 2021). The case of GMO regulation will exhibit several difficulties within this topic, however further examination of the democracy-legitimacy relationship is necessary.
In the literature democracy is defined dichotomously in governance for or governance by the people (Smismans, 2019). The first principle belongs to the representative model of democracy, the latter to participatory democracy, which relate with input and output legitimacy (Cengiz, 2018). Smismans (2019) defines input legitimacy as the degree to which civilians can participate in the decision process of policies. Output legitimacy describes how well effects of policies meet public demands (Smismans, 2019). Cengiz (2018) argues for the simultaneous consideration of by and for the people, pointing towards Schmidt’s (2013 & 2019) combined model. Schmidt’s (2013 & 2019) additional consideration is throughput legitimacy, which defines as “[…] a procedural criterion concerned with the quality of governance processes, as judged by the accountability of the policy-makers and the transparency, inclusiveness and openness of governance processes.” Hence it is independent from democratic participation as well efficiency of policies, thus it is independent from input/output legitimacy trade-offs.
The EU however bears democratic deficits to meet the requirements of each legitimacy model, as it lacks a directly elected representative institution with legislative competencies, just as it lacks a strong demos with a unified goal for the common good, according to Cengiz (2018). The demos is formed by a shared history, language, and culture – and arguably by scientific education, in regard of the GMO discussion as the understanding of more complex topics becomes difficult. This discussion is impeded by innumerable stages for political debates, which are prone to media manipulation (Cengiz, 2018). Thus, Cengiz (2018) argues for deliberative democracy, which facilitates a “collective rationality” through the deliberation of civilians from all different backgrounds. The necessary costs to enable inclusive deliberation is high, leading Cengiz (2018) to suggest a randomly selected representative “minipopulus”, as originally introduced by Dahl (1989). Offe (2014) and Schattschneider (1960) explain the importance of randomness to avoid a biased “minipopulus” and overrepresentation by politically active or higher-class citizens. However, relying on a random “minipopulus” rather than chosen experts in policy matters can be susceptible to false biases and misinformation (West & Bergstrom, 2019; Dinis-Oliveira, 2020), which is alerting in face of prospering pseudoscience and “alternative facts”-media since the COVID-19 pandemic surged – which has been called “infodemic” (Caulfield, 2020) and “paperdemic” (Dinis-Oliveira, 2020). Like COVID-19 and respective types of vaccinations, GMOs and respective technologies for gene manipulation are highly complex scientific matters. The Eurobarometer 94 finds that the topic most important to EU citizens is health (Eurobarometer 94, 2021) and respectively many stakeholders may wish to express their opinion. Hence, the discussion around GMO admissions struggles to promote legitimacy.
In the following chapter, the difficulty of understanding GMOs and stakeholder perspectives will be discussed, to subsequently connect the GMO debate with legitimacy deficits.
The difficulty of GMO comprehension begins with its unprecise definition, which is criticised among others by Tagliaube (2016) and Ajubar (2018). Tagliaube (2016) criticises the chaotic body of legal text on GMOs, which defines the subject across multiple annexes: “This convoluted and disorganized text is the basis for contorted and contradictory regulation. The general definition—in a loose sense—insists on the “unnaturalness” of GMOs.” Meanwhile other technologies, like physical and chemical mutagenesis, that result in genetical mutations are legal and not marked as GMO, which is accused for “disregard for reality and the principle of non-contradiction” (Tagliaube, 2016).
The EC describes its regulation to cater to the protection of human, animal and environmental health with “highest possible standards”, “harmonised, efficient and transparent procedures” and clear labels for traceable GMOs (EC: GMO legislation, 2021).
The resulting contrast of both descriptions evokes the assumption of lacking transparency. However, the EC has reacted on this matter in its recent study on new genomic techniques (NGTs) and respectively changed the current definition of GMOs to NGTs (EC Study, 2021).
The term “GMO” had described organisms which had individual genes edited, through processes like CRISPR, to alter specific characteristics, which would not change naturally, as to strengthen them against diseases or pests, improve yields or to add specific properties. An infamous example is the increase of Vitamin-A-levels in Golden Rice (Tang et al., 2009). The new NGTs are described by the EC study as “[…] techniques that are capable of altering the genetic material of an organism and that have emerged or have been developed since 2001, when the current legislation on [GMOs] was adopted” (EC Study 2021). Comparing these terms, no new characteristic appears to the common reader except the time component, hence leading to confusion with new terminology and a likely negative effect on the public perception of legitimacy.
McCormick (2020) pictures the GMO discussion in the EU as one of controversy and unprecedented legal prevention. This is explained through high-profile public campaigns, MS having the possibility to ban approved GMOs and the public fear of long-term health damages. These prerequisites resulted in the EU’s restrictive approach to GMOs, where only two GMOs, one potato and one corn type, were authorized by the Commission (McCormick, 2020). In contrast to this polity, Hilbeck et al. (2020) criticise the responsible European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) GMO policies for the inattentiveness towards scientific rationale, which – according to Zilberman et al. (2018) – regards modern GMOs as catalysts for productivity and farmer income, health benefits, pest control and environmental benefits.
The stakeholders in this matter vary from the mentioned public sector, farmers, biotech multinationals, NGOs, nation-states and the supranational body, the EU. The pursued interests range from health concerns, the fight against malnutrition, environmental and biodiversity conservation, soil preservation and pest/weed control, harvest and profit maximisation, economic power and sustainability, as recognised by the EC study (EC study on NGTs, 2021).
Many of these topics contradict another, like in the case of aforementioned “Golden Rice”. Environmental activists, NGOs, EU MS abiding the UN SDGs, and lastly civilians show interest in conserving soil through less pesticide and herbicide use, as well as more durable crops with higher nutrition, which may help fight famine in low-income countries. “Golden Rice” was developed to fight famine, through higher beta-carotene levels which convert to Vitamin-A, an essential element of human diet (Wesseler & Zilberman, 2016). The deficit of Vitamin-A leads to “hidden hunger”, which may lead to death UNICEF (2004). The authorization of “Golden Rice” is feared to open the doors for unresearched long-term health damages, uncontrolled gene-mutations, and seed monopolisation by agricultural companies. Researchers examining the compositional properties of normal rise and “Golden Rice” found, that the βcarotene-level is indeed the only difference to conventional rice, the probable ability to convert to Vitamin-A however requires testing which requires authorization – which is not decreed, hence impeding the fight against famines (Swamy et al., 2019).
This case is paradigmatic for the complexity of the debate of GMO authorization and legitimacy in the EU. The next chapter will discuss this imbalance.
In view of the interest conflicts of stakeholders in the GMO deliberation the perceived input and output legitimacy of GMO policies can be expected low. The admission of Golden Rice may affect legitimacy positively for those, arguing for foreign aid against famines and sustainable benefits, while those wary of health risks and uncontrolled mutations may perceive an admission as a legitimacy crisis.
The difficulty to assess the state of GMOs can be interpreted to impede throughput legitimacy due to lacking transparency. Tagliaube (2016) criticised EU legislators for their biased, prejudice-led opinions on GMO and respective policies, hence it is hard to argue for transparency, accountability, and proper public informing. Rather a “pseudocategory of products” is found, allowing an inscrutable “sectoral and sectarian” regulation of GMOs (Tagliaube, 2017).
To tackle problems of legitimacy, Cengiz (2018) argued for establishing mechanisms of a deliberative democracy, and the probability of a randomized “minipopulus”. Considering the difficulty to understand complicated matters, the cost of implementing deliberative mechanisms may not cover the risks of a biased, less informed deliberation-populus taking responsibility for policy making.
Yet, costs for including many opinions may fall in the light of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence applications to interpret public commentaries (Starke & Lünich., 2020). In the case of GMO civilians have the possibility to comment on an EU webpage[2] 30-days prior to authorization, though respective efficacy is doubtful considering even specialised agencies gain little attention from EU legislators (Hönnige & Panke, 2016). Channels for debate participation are criticised in different aspects. In context of ECB legitimacy Barret (2018) quotes Verdun and Zeitlin’s (2017) assessment of national parliaments lacking utilization of mechanisms for information, consultation, and debate. Hence, Barret (2018) describes the need for changes at European and national level to tackle democratic legitimacy. Similarly, the Eurobarometer 94 (2021) shows two thirds of polled civilians acknowledging the COFE as a positive sign for democracy, however a majority doubts any effective impact. AI has potentials for the inclusion of public commentaries.
Finally, Cengiz (2018) concludes the necessity of “open, equal and active participation of citizens in the policymaking process” to legitimise policies of public interest. Momentarily, mechanisms for participation and incentivizing participation need improvement.
Jacques Delors[3] once said “Europe began as an elitist project in which it was believed that all was required was to convince the decision-makers. That phase of benign despotism is over.” With legitimacy struggles in perspective, this persistently holds true.
Implementing democratic mechanisms to provide legitimacy remains difficult, while some measures may be suggested to improve legitimacy: Less dispersed, for legitimacy ineffectual deliberation mechanisms are required. Codices and fundamental regulations linked to sanctions for a minimal journalistic practice quality, alike the Austrian Press Code of Honour[4], may help build a better-informed civilisation and avoid misinformation through media. These efforts could declamp the GMO discussion, which remains controversial.
Lastly, the EU needs to strengthen its PR to enhance the fundamental trust in its institutions.
This essay succeeds in adding to the collaborative research of deliberative democracy and legitimacy in the EU. It does not fully explain EU decision making dynamics in the light of legitimacy; however, it illustrates why explaining these dynamics in the face of delicate topics like GMOs is challenging.
This essay lacks a proper evaluation of the effects of alternative breeding techniques (see Albujár & van der Meulen, 2018) as well as the possibilities surrounding seed monopolisation, as hardly any consulted paper offered empirical evaluations of the possibilities surrounding seed monopolisation.
Future research needs to consider the entanglement of EU narratives, public opinion, interest groups, specialised agencies and lobbying groups in more detail.
Albújar, Gema Fernández & van der Meulen, Bernd. (2018). The EU’s GMO Concept. European Food and Feed Law Review, 13(1), 14-28.
Austrian Democracy Lab (ADL). 21.06.2021. “Corona drückt die Demokratiezufriedenheit”. In: Präsentation des Demokratieradar Welle 7. https://www.austriandemocracylab.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Pressemappe_ADL_2021.pdf
Barrett, Gavin. (2018). European economic governance: Deficient in democratic legitimacy? Journal of European Integration, 40(3), 249-264.
Caulfield, Timothy (27.4.2020). Pseudoscience and COVID-19 – we’ve had enough already. In: Nature. ISSN 1476-4687. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01266-z .
Cengiz, Firat. (2018). Bringing the citizen back into EU democracy: Against the input-output model and why deliberative democracy might be the answer. European Politics and Society (Abingdon, England), 19(5), 577-594.
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Dinis-Oliveira , R. J. (2020). COVID-19 research: pandemic versus “paperdemic”, integrity, values and risks of the “speed science”, Forensic Sciences Research, 5:2, 174-187, DOI: 10.1080/20961790.2020.1767754
European Commission. 22.01.2021. “The Commission authorises eight genetically modified crops for use as food and feed.”. In: Daily News. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_21_190 .
European Commission. 29.04.2021. “EC study on new genomic techniques”.
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/new-techniques-biotechnology/ec-study-new-genomic-techniques_en
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/new-techniques-biotechnology/ec-study-new-genomic-techniques_en
EC / European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. (2021) “GMO legislation.” ISSN 1977-3927. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/gmo-legislation_en
Eurobarometer 94. Winter 2020 – 2021. “Die öffentliche Meinung in der Europäischen Union.“
Hilbeck, Angelika, Meyer, Hartmut, Wynne, Brian, & Millstone, Erik. (2020). GMO regulations and their interpretation: How EFSA's guidance on risk assessments of GMOs is bound to fail. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), Environmental sciences Europe, 2020-04-03, Vol.32 (1).
Hönnige, Christoph, & Panke, Diana. (2016). Is anybody listening? The Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee and their quest for awareness. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(4), 624-642.
McCormick, J. (2020) ‘Agriculture and Fisheriesʼ, in McCormick, J. ‘European Union Politicsʼ, 3rd edition, London: Macmillan, pp: 379-393.
Murray, Philomena, & Longo, Michael. (2018). Europe's wicked legitimacy crisis: The case of refugees. Journal of European Integration, 40(4), 411-425.
Offe, Claus. (2014). The Europolis experiment and its lessons for deliberation on Europe. European Union Politics, 15(3), 430-441.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schmidt, Vivien A. (2013). Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2-22.
Schmidt, Vivien A. & Wood, M. (2019). Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public administration, Wiley. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12615 .
Starke, Christopher & Lünich, Marco. (2020). Artificial intelligence for political decision-making in the European Union: Effects on citizens’ perceptions of input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Data & Policy, 2, Data & Policy, 2020-11-01, Vol.2.
Swamy, B. P. Mallikarjuna, Samia, Mercy, Boncodin, Raul, Marundan, Severino, Rebong, Democrito B, Ordonio, Reynante L, . . . MacKenzie, Donald J. (2019). Compositional Analysis of Genetically Engineered GR2E “Golden Rice” in Comparison to That of Conventional Rice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 67(28), 7986-7994.
Tagliabue, Giovanni. (2016). The meaningless pseudo-category of "gMOs": The trouble with the "new techniques" for genetically modifying crops demonstrates the illogical process-based definition of GMOs in EU regulation. EMBO Reports, 17(1), 10-13.
Tagliabue, Giovanni. (2017). The EU legislation on "GMOs" between nonsense and protectionism: An ongoing Schumpeterian chain of public choices. GM Crops & Food, 8(1), 57-73.
Tang, Guangwen, Jian, Qin, Dolnikowski, Gregory G, Russell, Robert M, & Grusak, Michael A. (2009). Golden rice is an effective source of vitamin A. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(6), 1776-1783.
UNICEF, 2004. “Versteckter Hunger.“ https://unicef.at/news/einzelansicht/versteckter-hunger/
Verdun, A., and J. Zeitlin. (2017). “The European Semester as a New Architecture of EU Socioeconomic Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of European Public Policy. doi:10.1080/13501763.2017.1363807.
Wesseler, Justus & Zilberman, David. (2016) Golden Rice: no progress to be seen. Do we still need it? in Cambridge University Press: Environment and Development Economics 22: 107–109. doi:10.1017/S1355770X16000292
Zilberman, David; Holland, Tim G, & Trilnick, Itai. (2018). Agricultural GMOs-What we know and where scientists disagree. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 10(5), 1514.
Parts deleted for word count:
Silina, Everita. (2010). Legitimacy in a Post-national Context: Efficiency and Democracy in the European Union.
Paskalev, Vesco. (2015). GMO Regulation in Europe: Undue Delegation, Abdication or Design Flaw? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 6(4), 573-578.
Sanders, D., Magalhães, P., & Tóka, G. (2012). Citizens and the European polity : : Mass attitudes towards the European and national polities (1st ed., Intuie). Oxford :: Oxford University Press.
Kleine, Mareike. (2018). Informal governance and legitimacy in EU politics. Journal of European Integration, 40(7), 873-888.
[1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/commission-reopens-gene-editings-box-amid-sustainability-claims/
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/public-consultations-gm-food-feed-authorisation-applications_en
[3] Jaques Delors, in response to the narrow victory, or ‘petite oui’, for ratification in the French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992
[4] https://www.presserat.at/show_content.php?sid=3&reload=1
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/public-consultations-gm-food-feed-authorisation-applications_en
[3] Jaques Delors, in response to the narrow victory, or ‘petite oui’, for ratification in the French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992
[4] https://www.presserat.at/show_content.php?sid=3&reload=1
