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-Hélène 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.
