The EU currently imports 58 varieties of GMO crop—predominantly US maize, soybeans and sugar beet—but now, 17 new foods will be authorised by the European Commission for importation. These foods consist largely of animal feed, such as cottonseed meal and oil.

Political furore aside (for the moment), this authorisation represents a significant advance for the biotech industry within Europe, which lags behind in GMO development, when compared to Asia and the Americas. GMOs in many parts of Europe are seen as an untrustworthy ‘unknown’, but the crops have been grown around the world for almost half a century. The EU's actions have gathered support from those heralding the start of greater exploration into the opportunities of GMO in Europe.

Yet the bill has also caused great unrest in Europe, chiefly because the proposals seem to have fully satisfied no one. Alongside the authorisation of the 17 crops, the Commission has also proposed an ‘opt-out’ clause for countries which can justify the exclusion of specific crops from their markets. Supporters of GMO development argue this exemption will make the crops easy to block, while those against argue the process will be too difficult to complete as it will be much harder to justify disruptions to the continental market.

Public support for GMOs varies from country to country in the EU. In Britain, groups like Greenpeace and the Soil Association claim the EU has ignored public opinion, and yet a public attitudes assessment carried out by the Food Standards Agency in February 2015 found that concern about GMOs was only the 7th most voiced concern about food, behind more ‘mundane’ factors such as food hygiene and additives. According to the assessment, 24 per cent of the public cited it as a concern, behind 39 per cent for ‘food hygiene while eating out’, and this level of concern drops to 11 per cent for those aged between 16-25. This shift in perspective is a significant and rapid fall from 2003, where the Economist cites levels of concern at 42 per cent in Britain. Clearly therefore, attitudes towards GMOs are changing, and many have high hopes for the future of the industry in Britain.

New stories about GMOs crop up regularly, but the controversy surrounding them has long gone stale. We roll our eyes when people speak of ‘Frankenfoods’. Even though scientists have repeatedly challenged the foundations of these fears, such fears are real obstacles in the way of constructive discussion of GMOS and should not be underestimated. Equally worrying is the threat posed by GMO companies like Monsanto with their monopolies on seeds and fertilisers encroaching on poor farmers’ liberties. That said, the new GMO development in Europe is particularly interesting not for these reasons, but because it is a factor being discussed in the context of a wider EU-US trade agreement

This debate is not merely a British or European squabble over GMOs, with the same old arguments repeated in favour of GMO development by nations like Spain and the UK, and against by France and Germany. The pressure on the debate is intensified in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. The TTIP refers to the ongoing negotiations between the EU and US to create a huge, bilateral trade agreement. Still several years away from any real decision, maintaining political sovereignty is a real issue for the EU, but this endeavour will not be easy. On 14th April this year, a staggering 898 amendments to a report of recommendations were discussed, and the EU has stressed that both member governments and the EU Parliament will be involved in making a final decision about TTIP. This assurance, however, has not allayed the fears of those wary of the power and influence of the American market.

With a strong GMO industry, the US has displayed a vested interest in opening up the European biotech markets to further trade. For this reason the US have been very vocal in their reaction to the ‘opt-out’ proposal, with US Trade Representative Michael Froman saying the US was “very disappointed” and that it was “hard to reconcile with the EU’s international obligations”. This slight at the EU reveals the hurdles involved. The powerhouse of the US adamantly supports the expansion of GMOs. The European community is strongly divided on the issue, with both politicians and the public, juxtaposed against the scientific community eager for further research. The EU itself is continually asserting its own sovereignty in a long, drawn-out negotiations process.

It is unclear exactly what route Europe will take in this debate, but the longer it delays a decision, the louder US biotech firms will call for action. Many scientists feel passionately about the possibilities of GMOs, of providing a real solution to food scarcity on a global scale. At the moment though, GMO supporters need more than just vision, they will need to successfully negotiate the political storm of international sovereignty. It will also be interesting to see whether the optimism and drive in most budding European GMO companies will survive if markets are opened up to larger, older US industries with global monopolies on the GMO market. GMOs are not a new technology, but as they have been little embraced in the continent European companies may struggle to survive if transatlantic markets opened up.

The ongoing GMO problem in Europe demonstrates more than just a textbook case of the social and political consequences of a publicly controversial technology. It shows how complicated and drawn out the clash can be between progressive scientific industries eager for expansion, and the political status quo which approaches new ventures such as this with caution. By making inroads in Europe, the GMO question exemplifies the fears that can arise when technological expansion is deemed a threat to political and economic freedom.