The European Union’s policy on genetically modified (GM) organisms has long been an embarrassment. The question of whether Europe should approve a GM crop for cultivation has been re-played on an endless loop, with national governments unable to muster majorities for or against authorisation. The European Commission has been left having to defend the impossible and to smooth over scratchy relations with the EU’s trade partners.  In 2006, the World Trade Organization (WTO) came down against the EU on most counts over a de facto ban and a failure to apply its own scientific principles. But recourse to the WTO cannot resolve the EU’s internal differences.

José Manuel Barroso was right to make sorting out the mess a priority for his second term as European Commission president. The status quo is untenable, giving the lie to the EU’s claims to be a single market, or even a customs union. Barroso’s answer was to give power back to national governments. John Dalli, the European commissioner for health and consumer policy, who is charged with putting the ‘Barroso doctrine’ into practice, this week (12 July) described the policy as “combining more freedom for member states with our strict science-based approach”. The Maltese commissioner also promised more “certainty” for farmers, industry and national governments.

Federalists, such as Guy Verhofstadt, the former prime minister of Belgium who now leads the European Parliament’s Liberal group, deplore the Commission’s attempt to “re-nationalise” policy. But they have to admit that the Commission has been trying to establish a European policy for a decade and has been thwarted by the member states. The 2001 directive, which created the current system of authorisation, has not managed to take the heat out of either the science or the politics.

This week’s policy shift recognises some of the reality on the ground. Spain, the Czech Republic and other countries that grow genetically modified crops now have the chance to cultivate different varieties, without being held hostage by other member states, such as France and Germany, that oppose GM crops. On the other side, six countries that already ban GM maize on their territory – Austria, France, Greece, Germany, Luxembourg and Hungary – can be assured that their policy will not be challenged. The Commission has tried four times to overturn these bans, but no weighted majority of ministers would wear it.

The difficulty for EU-enthusiasts such as Verhofstadt is that one of the great strengths of Europe is its diversity. Enormous cultural differences – of, for example, language and history – are concentrated in a very small area. So when these cultural diversities spill over into food and the environment, should they be protected or sacrificed for the sake of European solidarity?

It would, in any case, be stretching things to describe the Barroso doctrine as “unity in diversity”. Rather, it is a pragmatic recognition of national sensitivities over food, farming and the soil, even if pragmatism cannot paper over all the cracks. The EU should face up to what the new policy is and what it is not. This is not a “science-based policy”. National governments will be allowed to turn a blind eye to science, for vaguely defined “ethical reasons” if enough people are against GM foods. It is also a gamble with the single market. Dalli dismissed claims that his GM proposals amounted to re-nationalisation or that they would set a precedent. But at this stage he simply cannot know its consequences. If national governments see that the Commission is prepared to retreat from European rules for growing GM crops, then why not seek a retreat on other sensitive policies such as farm subsidies or fishing quotas?

The Commission’s dreams of achieving certainty may yet prove elusive and illusory. Anti-GM campaign groups predict that, if this law passes, biotechnology companies will challenge the law under world trade rules – a concern that some Commission officials shared when they saw earlier versions of the proposals.

Europe’s GM headaches may be more out in the open in future, but they will not quickly dissipate.