While the Union's cautious approach to granting market authorisation to new
technology applications like GMOs or products derived from nanotechnology
has meant that EU has not suffered from any major backlash, it could also
mean the bloc is missing out on major opportunities to improve its
competitiveness, argued a policy analyst from a Brussels-based think tank in
an interview with EurActiv.com.
The debate on the precautionary principle, the basis on which EU's risk
assessments are made, is often linked to the debate on European
competitiveness, with some arguing that it is a major hindrance to
innovation, said Marie-Hél?ne Fandel of the European Policy Centre (EPC).

"If we are too cautious, we will not move forward and ultimately risk losing
our competitive edge. On the other hand, if there is a significant risk to
health or the environment, we should not rush into adopting new
technologies. It all depends on our assessments of the benefits and costs,
and on whether the risks can be managed," she added.

As technological progress involves both challenges and opportunities,
discussion is particularly important "in cases where the impact of new
technologies is relatively unknown or contested," she said, highlighting
divisions between those EU member states with a tendency to spot immediate
opportunities and those which are more cautious.

According to Fandel, the main challenges include the potential dangers to
human health or environment, while the opportunities highlighted include the
potential of nanotech or biotech, for example, to help cure specific
diseases and reduce energy use.

Meanwhile, new technologies also raise ethical questions, "for example when
it comes to reproductive medicine and the use of stem cells," added Fandel.

And with an increasing number of products incorporating new technologies
such as nanotech or biotech, "a common approach is needed to avoid a
fragmentation of the single market over product safety issues," she argued.
It is also important that "decision-makers recognise the risk of inaction if
the EU fails to act quickly on new technologies," she said, suggesting that
the economic benefits and new jobs could profit Europe's competitors
instead.

"What certainly needs to improve is the speed of response" to new
technologies, she said, citing the example of nanotech, for which the EU
code of conduct for its responsible development was developed only after
goods incorporating nanotechnologies had already reached the EU market.

Politicians deciding on the authoritsation of new technologies is not
necessarily a bad thing, she said, as science is very rarely "neutral" and
depends on both the cost-benefit analysis and the risk assessment of the
products.

However, what's important, she argued, is that politicians work on public
perception. "What really matters is how those risks are managed" and
communicated to the public in order to avoid the rise of a very risk-averse
approach to new technologies," she said. Every effort should be made "to win
the support of the member states and public opinion," she argued, adding
that it is also important to analyse where politicians are going wrong in
allowing "so much negative hype" and fears to take hold.
www.checkbiotech.org