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.