Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

This thesis analyses how the contrasting regulatory frameworks in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) have shaped the diffusion and adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops within the context of plant breeding.
A comparative and theory-guided literature review, peer-reviewed studies, legal texts, official statistics, and grey literature published between 1996 and 2025 were examined. Initial keyword strings were expanded through an AI-based search assistant, and documents were subsequently selected via structured academic and judicial databases (Scopus, EUR-lex, Connected Papers, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) with a defined set of inclusion criteria. The analysis employed social science models (Renn’s risk governance, Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation, and Agricultural Innovation System) to organise and interpret the findings.
Results reveal a clear adoption gap. GE maize and soybeans account for 93 and 96 percent of the U.S. crop area, respectively, yet comprise less than 1 percent of the EU maize area and none of its soybean area.
Field trial activity has experienced a staggering decline since the 1990s, coinciding with higher compliance costs, increased approval timeframes, regulatory uncertainties, and an unfavourable legal environment. This has resulted in the relocation of private R&D away from the Union to more lenient jurisdictions. Conversely, the U.S. has a product-centric and trait-based approval process that only reacts if explicit pest, pesticide, or food safety issues are triggered and has witnessed consistent field trial activity.
The findings support the theory that the EU’s strict process-oriented framework leads to reduced field trials, increased regulatory complexity, and limits the observability that would aid in the diffusion of innovation over time. While this framework seemingly restricts innovation and the adoption of GE crops for cultivation, it paradoxically permits large-scale imports of the same GE commodities. This inconsistency complicates trade and undermines domestic breeders.
In summary, the EU’s policy highlights the need for reform to align risk assessment with product characteristics, streamline field trial application requirements, and to restore coherence between cultivation and import policies.