Consumer or Privately Driven; Who Benefits from the EU Moratorium on Genetically Modified Organisms?

Consumer welfare should be the underlying concerns for policies created under that guise; however, in the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) the European Union (EU) seems to have overstepped that boundary. This paper proposes to review the benefits reaped by both consumer and other (economic and political) interest groups. The objective is to verify that there are underlying economic and political beneficiaries, who profit from the restrictions set forth in the moratorium than do the consumers.

The devious actions by firms, such as Monsanto, at the onset of the biotechnology debate were the catalysts for consumer upheaval; these companies slipped GM products into grain exports without consumer knowledge. Consequently, consumers then began to question not only the actions of the firms but those of the scientists. Ethical questions and conflict with tradition plagued European consumers, which inevitably led to a postmaterialist-style movement in opposition to GM products. Other interest groups have also benefited from the implementation of the moratorium, and at a relatively similar degree. Farmers profit from a significant lack of foreign competition as well as monetarily from the substantial government subsidies. Government benefits by keeping the cities from becoming too overcrowded and, thus, keeping unemployment from rising too high. Most importantly, the threat posed by the massive influx of low-cost GM products could effectually ruin the EU agricultural sector altogether.

In brief, though originally intended as a consumer protection plan, the EU moratorium on GM products is more than that. It is an example of regional protectionism; thus, proving my conjecture correct. This conclusion justifies future study in regional integration, EU political policy and international political economy.

Is European Union (EU) Moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in effect since 1998, a product of European protectionism? Primarily what I intend to find out is whether or not the moratorium benefits the welfare of the consumers or secures the interests of other interest groups. The scope of the problem begins with an analysis of the creation of the moratorium banning genetically modified organisms by the EU. Hypothetically this moratorium is a means of protection for consumers. Exploration of the possibility that the decree is a product of European protectionism and business interest; benefits reaped by both consumers and other interest parties will be analyzed.

This case is of worthy of study because biotechnology has already started to infiltrate the daily lives of consumers; programs of research have the opportunity to change lives. Life without some of the airborne allergens, a cure for malnutrition, dieting without cravings; these are some of the future possibilities from genetic modification (GM). The world could benefit from such technologies, but radical ethics may stand in the way. Education and miseducation also play a role in this debate; many opponents find too many extreme criticisms, while proponents are just a bit too accepting. The promises of biotechnology seem, to some degree, more pleasing than the present.

Globalization is a fact staring all people in the face. Citizens the world over are affected by the actions of those in other countries. Multinational corporations have already put biotech foods on US shelves, but shouldn't consumers here as well as abroad be allowed to choose? Some say yes, others disagree. It is within our own right to choose, not that of others. However, it seems that the EU is doing just that for European consumers; they have enacted a moratorium, which has halted the approval process for importation of GM products.

The European Union Moratorium on GM products is a problem for both the countries of the EU as well as those outside of the regional organization. Unfortunately, it was enacted with the wrong interests in mind; not for the safety of the majority of the European citizens but in the interests of the small time farmers who are benefiting greatly from large government farming subsidies. These farmers are granted large sums of money for their cooperation in government initiatives in the farming sector under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, the CAP is highly protectionist and is creating a problem for many countries who wish to peddle their farming products to the EU countries. In addition, the institution seems to be a financial burden on the EU's budget, using nearly half of the entire budget to subsidize the small time farms within the member countries. Thus, the study has significance for studying the politics of the EU as well as for international political economy. "Imports ... raise complex security issues ... [they] may reduce or threaten domestic employment, create the potential for external dependency, and reduce domestic monetary reserves, there is more to the IPE of trade policy than simple protectionism."

The direct effects of the moratorium should theoretically benefit the consumer; however, it is my belief that other interest groups (economic and political) profit more from its restrictions. Thus, the moratorium is a direct effect of EU protectionism. The regional level of analysis will suffice, as the primary beneficiaries would hypothetically reside within the EU member states. Description and political analysis will attempt to show that the EU Moratorium is a product of European protectionism. The inductive approach will be used to cite observations that indicate protectionism is above all else the reason for the implementation of the EU Moratorium on GM products.

The Scottish Agriculture College (SAC), an institution, involved in research on genetically modified (GM) products, provides information on the basics of genetic engineering and some of the key issues involved. According to the D. Atkinson, "all technological developments have a societal context. They are introduced to meet needs or open new opportunities within society and in turn modify the life of that society in some way" (1998).

Science is becoming highly-specialized and more complex, distancing itself from the majority of the population. As a result, society is often surprised by discovery and it is now harder to judge the future implications of such a breakthrough on our environment. Genetic engineering is a perfect example of such a technology; "the scale and impact of its probable effects, and because using the ability to manipulate heritability, and the genetic code, comes close to altering core elements of life" (Atkinson, 1998).

What is so revolutionary about genetic engineering is that it involves the transfer of genetic material between organisms that would never have been possible through traditional breeding methods. Humans have begun to identify specific genes, including their location and function in one plant in order to transfer those genes into another plant to produce a new species with the desired characteristics of both parent organisms. Through these processes vast evolutionary boundaries can be crossed, such as those separating different phyla, or even different kingdoms. Human beings are now capable of recombining DNA from organisms that have been on separate evolutionary paths for thousands, maybe millions, of years.

The nature of genetic engineering is something that has previously been touched on in this paper. It is the debate about the whether or not genetic engineering is just an 'extension of natural evolution.' Proponents of GM food maintain that this is the case. They point out that genetic engineering is not restricted to the genes already within a particular species, but that it has access to a much wider choice of genetic material, thus allowing improvements to a species not otherwise possible. Critics claim that genetic modification is unethical, and creating in the laboratory what could never happen in nature could lead to severe consequences. In Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority decided that the supporter's argument is sufficiently misleading that biotech companies should not use it in their advertising. It is this deep disagreement over the essential nature of GM food that underlies the entire debate.

In dealing with the disagreement concerning the effects on human health, proponents of GMO food point out that more than a thousand scientific studies have been done to assess the effects of GMO foods on physical health. They assert that there has been no evidence found during these studies to suggest that GM foods are harmful to human health. On the contrary, in markets where resistance to GM food is strong, critics argue that all the health-related research on GM food has been performed on animals, and mainly by the biotech companies who produce it. Their response to the supporters' position on the benefit of GMO food is that there is no evidence that it is harmful to human health because there have been no legitimate studies performed to assess any possible concern that may arise for humans. "[E]xtensive testing ... [should be] required before new [products] ... are introduced" (SCOPE, 2002). The fundamental assumption of proponents is that GMO food should be 'innocent until proven guilty.' Whereas, the assumption held by critics is that GMO food should be proven safe before it is marketed.

Proponents make the case that GMO crops are 'substantially equivalent' to traditional crops. The properties of the crops are significantly similar and no harm to the environment should result from their exposure to it. One argument is that "GM crops with enhanced pest resistance greatly reduce the use of chemical pesticides, the residues of which can negatively affect the environment." In a recent survey, a British panel confirmed that GM crops now in cultivation are as little a threat to human health as conventional ones (Economist, 26 Jul 2003). Critics argue that corn, which has been genetically modified to act as an insecticide, by poisoning the insects which eat it, is hardly 'substantially equivalent' to conventional corn. They contend that "negative effects could arise, such as use of herbicides in larger amounts because of greater herbicide resistance of GM foods, that cause residual damage, or 'artificial evolution,' of weed plants resistant to natural pests, and bacteria with resistance to antibiotics" (SCOPE, 2002). They indicate there has never been an environmental impact study done on any GMO crop. It is the uncertainty caused by potential environmental damage that has driven extreme activists to set fire to GMO crops in the field.

There has also been substantial debate in the business and marketing sphere. The GMO debate steadily escalated, and the demands from non-GMO markets have become increasingly strict. Businesses in the food industry have had to react with increasingly dramatic steps to meet these demands. At first, an exporter from North America to Europe could offer verbal assurances that the shipment was non-GMO. Then, it became necessary to provide at least one DNA test result demonstrating a low level of GMO contamination. Currently, buyers are insisting on systematic certification programs, with scientific testing at inspection points to determine the presence of GMO products. In such a volatile market, it is increasingly important for a clear understanding of how GMO products should be treated in each individual situation.

The humanitarian goals of geneticists have long since been an issue; they hope to combat world hunger and produce healthier foods. They can now enhance rice and other crops with beta-carotene, to combat Vitamin A deficiency (Winston, 2002). Other crops are also being manufactured to increase the amount of naturally occurring minerals and proteins. Geneticists are looking into producing healthier components for foods, to aid in improved eating habits. Another remarkable idea is to develop allergen free crops; imagine a world where food and airborne crop particles are not affecting a person's daily life.

Grounds for some hostility towards GM products are due to the actions of many producers at the beginning of the GM revolution. Monsanto, the world's leading GM producer, became known as the world's worst multinational corporation (MNC). It aggressively entered markets and slipped GM products onto the shelves of local supermarkets, unbeknownst to consumers. Opponents of GMOs, criticized the lack of ethics and arrogance displayed by the company (Winston, 2002).

When GM food products were introduced into the US markets, the Food and Drug Administration ruled that GM foods would have to follow the same guidelines and meet the same standards as those for regularly produced foods (Economist, 13 Jun 1998). The EU instituted a long and tedious set of regulations for GM foods at the beginning of the debate in early 1998. However, this then led to an implementation of a moratorium on GMOs by the entity later that year.

The current debate is most prevalent between the United States (US) and European Union (EU). The EU procedure of approving GM imports has induced repercussions that extend all the way back to the Midwest producer and this has caused a rift in the relations between the two entities. So large, in fact, that in 1999 a conference was held in Chicago, Illinois to debate the GMO Regulations set forth by the EU.

The conference debated the legality of the EU's regulations, because in the fall of 1998, the EU adopted the world's first regulation demanding that GM foods be clearly labeled, to allow consumer choice. The vote of the European Parliament was 402 to 2 in favor of labeling (Pence, 2002); this regulation started a controversy as to the authority of the EU's right to enforce such a measure.

Furthermore, in October of 1999, the European Union adopted a 1 percent threshold, meaning that it was only those foods that contain more than 1 percent GMO in any ingredient that have to be labeled as containing GMO. Currently, there has been no governmental regulation to establish the threshold below which foods could be labeled 'non-GMO,' but scientific constraints indicate that such a threshold will most likely be less than 0.1 percent. "Importing countries argue that mandatory labeling is necessary for protecting consumers from unintended consumption of lower-quality biotechnology products," characterized by their ability to induce allergic reactions and/or their potential to cause long term health risks (Jingi, 2003). Because consumers are unable to distinguish between GM and non-GM products physically, labeling allow them to act on their own preferences.

The EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was instituted under a three pillared philosophy: to bridge the gap between world and domestic prices, to give farmers and taxpayers a better deal; and to secure agriculture as an industry for the long-term. The CAP has become an important institution for "protecting" European consumers against GM foods. In recent years since the moratorium has been in effect, consumer faith in the CAP has grown; unfortunately, it has effectively raised the price of food for domestic European consumers by creating the moratorium.

The CAP was created out of negotiations that took place Stresa, Italy in July 1958; it stipulated that agricultural products "would be based on a system of common prices" (George & Bache, 2001, p. 309). The original idea was to set a target price at which prices should be maintained and once they fell below an intervention price the government would buy produce on the open market to attempt to preserve the price of food. Unfortunately, the Ministers of Agriculture tended to set the common prices artificially high which led to inflated food prices and the high cost of the CAP through the large government subsidies to farmers (George & Bache, 2001).

The EU established their current position in a document entitled "Life Sciences and Biotechnology - Towards a Strategic Vision," the document was set forth in Brussels on 23 January 2002. They proposed two short-term goals, European Parliament and Council "Regulation on Traceability and Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms and Traceability of Food and Feed derivatives from Genetically Modified Organisms ...
These regulatory procedures, however, are creating a great deal of conflict between the US and EU. The US, a leading producer of GM products, is considering taking action against the EU on its regulation of biotech imports. US Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman reports that the Bush administration is considering filing a case against the EU in the WTO (2003).

Later that year, in August, the green lobby in Britain won out. The GM crop business was now scheduled to move out of the country. According to The Economist in an article titled "The grim reaper," Prime Minister Tony Blair had changed his stance to pro-GMOs while on a recent trip to India (22 Aug 2003). Unfortunately the rest of the country did not alter their stance and the public increasingly protested against GM products. The government proposed many public forums and debates, however, the pro-Green lobby did not waver.

African states, whose population is in danger of starvation, are rejecting US offers of food aid because they allow GM crops (Economist, 21 Sep 2002). They have once again invoked the "GM foods are health concerns," hardly an issue when the current option is death. Their second point is somewhat more important an issue, their agriculture exports are dependent upon the European states as buyers. The fear of "contamination," as Greenpeace officials put it, would mean a large economic loss for the country. It seems that the title of the article "Better dead that GM-fed" seems to fit underdeveloped African states who rely upon the business of their Northern neighbors.

US Trade Representative R. Zoellick slammed the EU regulations on GMOs, calling them 'immoral' and a 'complete violation of WTO' rules. The crucial upside, US officials say, could be elsewhere. They cite the continuing feud with Europe over its refusal to allow in US beef containing growth hormones. The United States won a beef-hormone case against Europe at the WTO four years ago. The victory did nothing to change EU behavior, but it did keep other countries from imposing similar bans.

In 02 July 2003, the European Parliament approved new and expanded regulations on GM food, which will make it more difficult to sell GM foods to the EU (Economist, 05 Jul 2003). One such rule lowers the labeling threshold to 0.9 percent of GM foods may be found in a shipment, any more and the shipment will be rejected. Labeling of derivative products, those that are created from GM crops, is another condition of the new regulations. While green parties are pleased over the win, US producers are ever more committed to bringing a case to the WTO. Even though governmental regulations are stiffening, consumer hostility to GM foods is beginning to decline, according the recent Eurobarometer survey (2003).

On 13 May 2003, they did just that. The US along with 13 other supporting countries filed a case against the EU Moratorium through the WTO (USDA, 2003). Zoellick stated that the US will wait no longer for the EU to observe its obligations. The European Commission (EC) has also advised the EU on a number of occasions of the benefits they are foregoing in continuing with the moratorium. For the past six months, both entities have been attempting to work out this disagreement. No further substantially important news has been reported.

There are many theories as to the underlying reasons for the anti-GM product lobby by the Western European countries. J. Kolmer, of the International Trade and Opportunity Center, feels that the difference in opinion lies in the cultural and economic concerns of the population (personal communication, 12 Feb 2004). Further, he asserts that when these interests are looked at on a political scale one will find that producers have a great deal of political clout and do contribute to the continuance of the CAP and its moratorium on GM products.

Here in the US, farming has now progressed to where local farmers can hardly make a living on less than 800 acres, with a second income supported by a spouse. Government subsidies pay farmers not to plant some fields to keep crop prices unnaturally high. It is now the trend for small time farmers to rent out their plots to others, and get a job in the city. Small farms are a thing of the past, remnants of a time long ago. Commercial farmers are now planting and harvesting 1000s of acres to turn a modest profit.

In the European states, small time farms are still in operation. The governments are paying the producers large sums of money to live on these small 15-30 acre plots. Most of these concerns are not consumer driven, but national issues. Part of the reason may be that the states are sensitive to their food supply and thus security of it. They want these farmers to stay in the fields, rather than move into the already over-crowded metropolitan areas. The states are also fearful of full-scale urbanization; aesthetics have always been a concern of the European population. Because of this, a push for "saving the countryside" has been made by the postmaterialists. Postmaterialist Europe is composed of many well-educated individuals, whose concerns are more abstract and long term.

It is commonplace in European cities for open-air markets, similar to what small-town American calls a farmer's market. However, they are not as widespread in the US as they are throughout the European continent. In particular, if one were to travel to Paris they may happen upon the Sunday market at the Place de la Bastille. It is a typical open market atmosphere, where one may observe a peculiar trend; "the produce proudly announces its origins" (Fetter, 2003, p. 35). The French call this terroir; "the French belief that local conditions such as soil and weather produce distinctive tastes" (Fetter, 2003, p. 35).

Even though these traditions are valid beliefs, they are not legitimate reasons for keeping such a divisive moratorium on the production and importation of GM products. The European Union is highly weary of risks that may hinder further integration and is based upon a system of standardization. However, J. Fetter has concluded that the European bureaucrats, activists and agribusinesses have been able to achieve a rough consensus on GM organisms because of the perceived, common and economic, threat by the United States (2003).

The threat by the United States, along with an example of European protectionism, can be best viewed in the so-called Banana Wars; the United States and the European Union are locked in a trade war. the EU's current "rules give bananas from certain former colonies-but not the US-preferential treatment" (Woolley, 1999). The US is not a prolific banana grower, however they are using this situation as an international example of how the EU is a protectionist organization; they are also demanding the repeal of a ten year ban on US hormone-treated beef. In opposition, the US had recently passed a bill in the House of Representatives that limited the importation of cheap steel from foreign countries (Woolley, 1999). This protectionism, on both sides, is gradually weakening the credibility of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and also threatens a period of inflation or depression, which it has led to in the past.

According to D. MacLachlan, in the 1970s the EU created a set of orders for the public sector that would effectually ban hidden protectionism under the public purchasing regime (as cited in Martin, Hartley, & Cox, 1997). However, these directives were not as strict as they seemed and national protectionism was actually a problem. There were major loopholes, and it was a major concern as to whether it would inhibit further integration. Therefore, politicians listed it as one of the concerns in the achievement of the Single European Act (Martin, Hartley, & Cox, 1997).

In response to the lack of commitment to anti-protectionism the European Commission (EC) has recently created a list of three favorable effects to prove that public procurement should be opened up to foreign buyers. This list was established to entice firms, who are looking for a subcontractor or other service provider, to choose the best suited firm and not those based on nationality. The 1993 directives regarding priority contracts were created to support the EC's conclusive research, but their impact was questionable. In Martin, Hartley and Cox's study data has shown that "[w]here the nationality of the supplier and the price of the winning bid are disclosed, it appears that preferential purchasing remains ... strong" (1997, p. 279). Therefore, even thought the EU has taken fairly keen measures to prevent such a phenomenon, buy national tendencies are still a problem. This is illustration of protectionism is more evident when looking at the problem from an international political economy (IPE) standpoint. "[P]olicy effectiveness requires addressing policy problems in a way that secures internal common objectives but is also consistent with external (liberal) standards of appropriate policy outcomes" (Skogstad, 2003). However, the policy toward GM products is driven primarily by domestic concerns.

The EU Moratorium on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) will act as the independent variable. In effect since 1998, the moratorium is the world's first regulation demanding that GM foods be clearly labeled, to allow consumer choice. Analysis of the regulatory restrictions will enable proper operationalization for this study.

Interest groups that benefit from the implementation of the moratorium will be viewed as the dependent variable. Interest groups, for this study, will be defined as consumer, as well as political and economic, groups. Operationalization will be reached by observing the benefits reaped by both consumer and the other (political and economic) groups; the two categories will be compared based on the scope of benefits.

European protectionism was necessary because it allowed for retention of previous governmental regulations which favor national firms or select foreign firms. It also led to a lack of implementation by the EU on those regulations as well. The underlying motivations are those of European firms and farmers, who fear they may lose out to foreign entities on bids for contracts. They thus can lobby protectionist governmental measures to prevent this. The fear and uncertainty of future effects of genetic modification (GM) was permissive; it allowed an outlet for the sometimes irrational stance against GM products.

The moratorium primarily benefits economic and political interest groups rather than those attending to the public welfare; this is my working hypothesis. If my theory is proved incorrect then the null hypothesis, the moratorium does not primarily benefit economic and political interest groups rather than those attending to the public welfare, would then be accepted.

Narrative data gathered from the sources compiled in the Review of Literature will be used to cite observations of benefit for each category; the categories being consumer welfare benefits and benefits to other interest groups. The sources cited are far from comprehensive; however, they do represent a foundation for protectionism in the EU's adoption of the moratorium on GM products. Sources cited are of high quality; selection of passages not subject to independent review; no level of reliability can be established when using a qualitative and descriptive process

Benefits to consumers by the moratorium seem to be justification enough for the passage of the directive suspending all testing and further approval of GM products within the EU. Due to education of consumers, and in some cases miseducation, they have created a movement calling for the labeling and regulation of GM products. Overreaching cultural and economic concerns, as well as long-standing traditions, have also played a part in the consumer lobby for the moratorium. European values are more conservative than those of US citizens due to the postmaterialist revolution.

When one observes the mitigating factors of the moratorium, it is appalling to consider the original actions of foreign firms; most notably US based corporations such as Monsanto, who acted unethically by quietly adding GM products in with naturally produced ones without notifying consumers. Consumer welfare groups acted rationally when they demanded labeling, because of the lack of distinguishability between the two products. Labeling will allow consumers to be informed as to the origin of products while also permitting an alternative to the potential risks, both known and unknown, of GM products. Consumers will then be the responsible party for their own decisions by being informed of the possible consequences.

Although testing has been done, there is no concrete evidence of potential concerns that may lie ahead for humans. Consumer groups will benefit in the long term by forcing biotechnology development firms to test and retest their products through several generations. Legitimate studies on human impact will create a consumer sentiment that these products are proven safe for human consumption. If adverse effects occur in these tests, the health of consumers will be preserved.

Cultural concerns of the population will be maintained through labeling of GM products. The open-air markets are a tradition of European society, and it is a belief that certain environmental conditions will produce individual character in a product. Through the maintenance of these traditions the EU is developing a legitimate relationship with its citizens. In addition, ethical distress over tampering with evolutionary boundaries will potentially be quelled through intense testing of the products before they are even considered for distribution. The effects of such organisms on the environment could be catastrophic (Lucas, 2003) in any case, and postmaterialist, value-ridden Europe is the ideal place for citizens to gather and work together against such a consequence.

Activists for the protection of European society as it is are working hard to preserve the countryside for the coming generations. With increasing urbanization many farmers in the US are leasing out their farms to larger agribusinesses and are relocating to the city for other means of employment. The Europeans see this trend and, because of their longstanding traditions of post-materialism, are afraid that the same will occur within their boundaries. Thus, to restrain urbanization they have utilized the creating of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and subsequently the moratorium on GM products, as a method of control and containment.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was originally created with the concerns of the producer in mind. As suggested by many of the preceding sources, it is a highly protective strategy for European agriculture. More specifically, two of its founding principles identify particular interest groups whose welfare will be supported. The first of which is that of farmers; they will be protected from external competitors. The CAP will essentially regulate the importation of agricultural products so that farmers within the European Union (EU) will not have to surrender to global competition. This form of protectionism leads us to the second pillar of the CAP; the agriculture industry as it is presently existent will remain as such. This bubble, created to shelter the industry from global forces, will continue to prop up prices for non-GM products. Keeping prices artificially high is, thus, a benefit to producers. Farmers are additionally assisted though large government subsidies for their production of a certain crop, or lack thereof in some cases

GM products could also pose a threat to the agricultural sector of the EU. If there EU were to allow an influx of these products from a state that could more readily produce the crops at a much cheaper and efficient manner, the entire farming sector of the EU would deteriorate. Much more importantly, through implementation of the current moratorium, European protectionism in agriculture is reinforced. These large sums of money are being paid to producers as financial assistance in continuing their farming lifestyle. Farming is inefficient in the EU because it would require vast amounts of flat fertile land to be prosperous. Economically, one has a greater chance of financial success if they were to gain a proper university-level education and accept a job in the service sector. Following the advent of post-materialism, many of the labor-intensive jobs moved outside of the region to less developed regions of the world where labor is cheaper. It is unlikely in the current state of affairs in Europe that there would be such a large occurrence without government support. It is likely that when farmers do receive these generous subsidies that they would then potentially use them to continue support for interest groups that work towards the preservation of the CAP and, thus, the moratorium.

The government also gains by keeping the farmers in the fields. Protection of the national food supply is a very real objective of states. As farmers harvest their crops, governments can procure and store crops for subsequent years should environmental or other conditions have an adverse affect on production in the years following. If there should be such an occurrence and the state was unprepared they could be at the mercy of global forces or just as stranded as other states who had been affected. Moreover, by keeping the farmers in the fields states are seeking to avoid over-populated cities. Rapid urbanization leads to many problems for states, and in the case of Europe, overextended welfare programs. That is to say, should a rapid inflow of people into the cities occur, overcrowding could lead to high unemployment and, consequently, recession or depression for the state.

In addition, European bureaucrats, activists and agribusinesses have banded together to combine efforts against their US competitors. They view the US as an agricultural opponent, one that will undoubtedly force the EU to halt production of agricultural products due primarily to inefficiency. To protect this industry, and thus the support of a good deal of the population, they have created the CAP. Producers, themselves, also exert a great deal of political influence through their own interest groups. Their welfare lies in the continuation of the moratorium, as well as the CAP. Their pressure on bureaucrats and their local governments have conveyed their concurrence to sustaining the CAP and moratorium as they are currently in place. The bureaucrats have also been reinforced in their measures taken so far by the growth of consumer faith in their regulatory procedures. By acting as a protectorate of consumers from global forces and, thus, the potentially harmful effects of GM products, the CAP has procured substantial confidence in its ability to shelter European agriculture and consumers.

It is ideal in theory to believe that consumer protection is the overall goal of protectionist regulations such as the EU Moratorium on GM products. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In some ways consumers have and will suffer from the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the moratorium. Not only will consumers within the EU suffer, but also citizens outside the region. The effects of the CAP and moratorium are further reaching than ever because of the growing impact of globalization.

Much of the concern over the effects of GM products is likely resultant from the late 1970s postmaterialist value change (Peters & Hunold, 1999). Although the conditions that gave way to the movement have drastically changed, the ideas that evolved are still very debatable topics to this day. Many activists and organizations have been formed that seek to advocate "peace, equality, participation and environmental protection" (Inglehart, as cited in Peters & Hunold, 1999, p. 137).

With the rise of consumer faith, so the price of food has risen. Although consumers benefit greatly from the implementation of the CAP and, subsequently, the moratorium, they also experience some draw backs. For their increased protection by the government the population is forced to pay unnaturally high prices for these products. Foremost, the subsidies distributed through the CAP are an immense financial burden to the EU, and are relayed to consumers through taxation. Additionally, tariffs placed on imported goods also inflate prices on those products in whatever capacity they are available to consumers; e.g. in the marketplace or when dining out.

Environmental destruction is a looming problem; there are already many instances of irreversible damage. It is possible that the introduction of new species of GM crops could present catastrophic consequences; however, as in the Midwest United States (US) many varieties have been introduced into the environment with minimal harm. In all actuality, there may be some reparation, with the reduction in use of hazardous chemicals to deter insects and to kill weeds. This is not to say that in the future these enemies of the farmers may become immune to the compounds introduced into the DNA of the species. However, for now there is a large reduction in pesticide use, which has in the past been linked to respiratory problems in children (Meersman, 2002).

Another drawback of the implementation of the moratorium is an adverse global impact. In one case, states in Africa have refused US food aid because it would invariably contain GMOs. Their position is a critical one, these states are agricultural exporters to the EU and to keep that status they are forced to reject the offers due to the potential for contamination. It is likely that citizens, once administered grains for food purposes would then utilize what is left over to produce food in an agricultural capacity. Thankfully, there are alternatives to whole-grain imports; governments can decide to mill the aid crops before distributing them, so that they cannot be replanted. These less developed countries (LDCs), such as Africa, who export crops to the EU member states, are, thus, at the mercy of their spoiled neighbors to the North. As a result of this, these poor states will continue to harvest less efficient and, likewise, productive varieties of crops so that they may maintain their trading status with the EU. "Hardly a green outcome" (Economist, 21 Sep 2002).

Growth in consumer faith could also lead to faith in EU as a whole. The consumers are the ones who are advocating labeling of GM products; they want to be able to make their own choices as to the foodstuffs that enter their digestive systems. Through the EU's compliance, in enacting the moratorium, consumers within the member states may find that their faith in the still fairly fragile, supranational institution is growing. If the citizens sense that the EU is working towards their needs and protecting their welfare, legitimacy of the organization as a whole would predictably increase.

Following the enlargement, many of the former Soviet bloc countries lack even a sustainable agricultural-based economy (EU expansion, 2004). Lack of strategy and structure plagues the region, currently. With the aid of the Western states the Eastern European states could eventually end up with a flourishing agricultural sector. However, massive restructuring plans and a clear strategy will be desperately needed before any of this can happen. Before the enlargement the EU had 130m hectares of arable land, following it will procure 40m hectares; in the long term "much will depend on how consumption and production develops in these countries, in particular how the region's farmers respond to intervention export refunds and aid payments and whether that will change level of output and farming styles" (EU expansion, 2004). Should there eventually be a markable increase in these areas, the former East bloc could evolve into an agricultural force to be reckoned with; should the EU then be brought to the WTO on charges of protectionism it would then be less-likely that their case be so much as open and shut due to their increased base of support. G. Mason, HGCA senior economist, did note that the climate and patterns of production for the region are overall relatively unpredictable in nature; obviously, one should not place a great deal of faith in the region immediately.

This project began with the conjecture that although consumer benefit should be the primary reason for the implementation of the European Union (EU) Moratorium on Genetically Modified (GM) products, it is not. It was my hypothesis that other factors played a key role in the passage of the directive. Through analysis of a less than exhaustive number of sources I was able to amass a considerable amount of evidence that would for all intents and purposes prove my assumption correct. When considering this topic, I was advised that if there were any other beneficiaries from the implementation of the moratorium then my hypothesis would be correct. In fact, the amount of data accumulated for both groups was relatively similar. Without exploring the depth of each example, one can surmise that the amount of data accumulated is both suitable and extensive enough to warrant acceptance of my working hypothesis.

Although I was largely correct in believing that it was not only consumer protection that played a role in the creation and implementation of the moratorium, I do not believe that these are the only explanatory causes. Of course there are other factors; there are those that relate to human self-interest, as well as national self-interest. It is, however, a very comprehensive subject to broach and to explore it further would be an intensive endeavor.

A major implication of this study is the future research on the relationship between regional policy-making and protectionism; not only in the European Union (EU), but abroad as well. As regional organizations such as the EU, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) continue to emerge it is important to cite that the public policies within and between these organizations will become more significant. Scholars believe that with the continued success of the EU that other regional organizations will try to mirror the extent to which they are working towards. Should success occur, state sovereignty maybe transferred to these regional organizations, who would theoretically take the place of the state government. If so, then protectionist tendencies would inhibit further integration to a more supranational government, but that is for another time.

Another inference that could be made would be in the context of the EU itself. With the latest enlargement taking place concurrent to the compilation of this paper, scholars will surely be watching for any signs of future success or failure of the EU. General policy issues of the EU would be a primary candidate for the application of the findings of this paper. Looking at the institution more broadly, one might speculate that the new member states were accepted due to other, less Europeanization-motivated reasons; most prominently the benefits that could be reaped by European corporations.

A third allusion resulting from this study could affect the future study of international political economy (IPE). Pertaining mostly to the subsection of international trade, it is possible that the exchange of goods and services raise many security issues (Veseth, n.d.). In this case we looked at the security issues of importing GM products because of the potential risks they present to both the population of the EU member states as well as the environment. GM products also pose a threat to the agricultural sector of the EU. If there EU were to open its trade barriers to GM products without properly developing and executing a strategy beforehand, currently their agricultural sector would not be able to handle the influx of GM products.

Overall, the empirical evidence cited in this report leads one to believe that its conjecture was true. Subsequently, the extent of its relevance is far reaching, encompassing economic integration, political policy of the EU itself, and the study of international political economy. It is almost reason enough to say that no matter how liberally-motivated one is (one being a person, an institution, etc.), there will be self-interested parties who will be apart of the system.

Atkinson, D. (1998). Genetically Modified Organisms. Scottish Agricultural College. Retrieved 02 Feb 2004, from http://www.sac.ac.uk/info/External/Publications/GMOs.asp.

European Environmental Agency. (2002). Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer. (EEA issue report No. 28). Copenhagen, Denmark: Eastham, K., Sweet, J., et al. Retrieved 04 Feb 2004, from http://www.bio-scope.org/attach/pdf/eea.pdf.

European Union. (2003). Eurobarometer 58.0: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002. Retrieved 10 Feb 2004, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_177_en.pdf. London, UK: Gaskill, G., Allum, N., Stares, S., et al.

EU expansion: What will an enlarged EU mean for you? (2004, 05 Apr). Arable Farming, 20. Retrieved 28 Apr 2004, from LexisNexis Academic database.

Fetter, J. (2003). Trans-Atlantic food fight. American Prospect, 14(5), 35-83.

George, S., & Bache, I. (2001). Politics in the European Union. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Jingi, N. (2003). Strategic mandatory labeling in the absence of quality difference. The International Trade Journal, 17(4), 305-320. Retrieved 27 Apr 2004, from EBSCOhost Electronic Journals Service database.

Martin, J., Hartley, K., & Cox, A. (1997). Public purchasing in the European Union: some evidence from contract awards. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(4), 279.

Meersman, T. (2002, 04 Jun). Birth defects in farm area studied; More congenital disorders seen amid pesticide use. Star Tribune, 1B. Retrieved 28 Apr 2004, from LexisNexis Academic database.

Pence, G. (2002). Designer Food: mutant harvest or breadbasket of the world?. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Peters, B. G., & Hunold, C. (1999). European Politics Reconsidered (2^nd Ed.). New York, NY: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Inc.

SCOPE Research Group (UC Berkeley, UW, AAAS). (2002). GMF Questions, Many Positions-Seven Questions about GM Food. Retrieved 18 Feb 2004, from http://scope.educ.washington.edu/.

Skogstad, G. (2003). Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness?: network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(3), 321-28,

The Economist. (2002, 23 Aug). The grim reaper, 364 (8287), 44-5.

The Economist. (2002, 21 Sep). Better dead than GM-fed, 364 (8291), 76.

The Economist. (2003, 05 Jul). More trouble ahead, 368 (8331), 64.

The Economist. (2003, 26 Jul). In a stew, Vol. 368 (Issue No. 8334), 10.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2003). US and cooperating countries file WTO case against EU Moratorium on biotech foods and crops (Release No. 0156.03). Retrieved 05 Feb 2004, from http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/05/0156.htm.

Veneman, A. (2003, 20 Feb). Transcript. 79th Agricultural Outlook Forum (Release No 0062.03). Crystal City, Virginia. Retrieved 18 Feb 2004, from http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/02/0062.htm.

Veseth, M. (n.d.). What is International Political Economy. Retrieved 28 Apr 2004, from http://www.ups.edu/ipe/whatis.pdf.

Wallace H., & Wallace, W. (2000). Policy-Making in the European Union, Fourth Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Winston, M. (2002). Travels in the genetically modified zone. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Woolley, S. (1999). Banana Wars. Money, 29 (5), 29.