fbpx
01 / 05
Ridley: The EU's Absurd Risk Aversion Stifles New Ideas

Blog Post | Health & Medical Care

Ridley: The EU's Absurd Risk Aversion Stifles New Ideas

Excessive regulations suppress medical and environmental benefits of new technology.

With tariffs announced against Brazil and Argentina, and a threat against France, Donald Trump is dragging the world deeper into a damaging trade war. Largely unnoticed, the European Union is also in trouble at the World Trade Organisation for its continuing and worsening record as a protectionist bloc.

Last month, at the WTO meeting in Geneva, India joined a list of countries including Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil and Malaysia that have lodged formal complaints against the EU over barriers to agricultural imports. Not only does the EU raise hefty tariffs against crops such as rice and oranges to protect subsidised European farmers; it also uses health and safety rules to block imports. The irony is that these are often dressed up as precautionary measures against health and environmental threats, when in fact they are sometimes preventing Europeans from gaining health and environmental benefits.

The WTO complaints accuse the EU of “unnecessarily and inappropriately” restricting trade through regulatory barriers on pesticide residues that violate international scientific standards and the “principle of evidence”. Worse, they say, “it appears that the EU is unilaterally attempting to impose its own domestic regulatory approach on to its trading partners”, disproportionately harming farmers in the developing nations whose livelihoods depend on agriculture.

The problem is that the EU, unlike the rest of the world, bases its regulations on “hazard”, the possibility that a chemical could conceivably cause, say, cancer, even if only at impossibly high doses. WTO rules by contrast require a full “risk” analysis that takes into account likely exposure. Coffee, apples, pears, lettuce, bread and many other common foods that are part of a healthy diet contain entirely natural molecules that at high enough doses would be carcinogenic. Alcohol, for instance, is a known carcinogen at very high doses, though perfectly safe in moderation. The absurdity of the EU approach can be seen in the fact that if wine were sprayed on vineyards as a pesticide, it would have to be banned under a hazard-based approach.

This is all part of the EU’s insistence on using an especially strong version of the precautionary principle, as required by the Lisbon Treaty. Along with diverging from international scientific standards, this creates an insurmountable bias against new innovations, as anything new presents hypothetical risks, while the hazards of existing technologies are not assessed in the same way. Ironically, the precautionary principle will make it impossible to develop innovative technologies that can promote human health, improve the environment and protect biodiversity. Everything has potential downsides: what should count is the balance between risk and benefit.

Germany plans to phase out the use of glyphosate herbicide by 2023 and the European Commission is moving towards a ban, though not on other more toxic herbicides. This is one of the issues that has brought thousands of German farmers on to the streets in protest. Glyphosate has repeatedly been shown to be less toxic to animals than coffee, even at high doses, let alone at the doses people in practice encounter. This has been confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority and its equivalents in America, Australia and elsewhere.

This problem matters because glyphosate (better known as Roundup) is a valuable tool in conservation, used for protecting habitats from invasive alien weeds. Moreover, throughout the Americas today glyphosate used as part of “minimal tillage” replaces ploughing as a means of controlling weeds. This results in better soil structure, less soil erosion, less damage to soil fauna, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, more carbon storage and better water retention.

By protecting old-fashioned farming practices, such as ploughing, or the use of much more toxic pesticides by organic farmers, such as copper sulphate, the EU is effectively imposing lower environmental standards on its citizens than in some other parts of the world. This makes a mockery of some Remainer claims that leaving the EU will result in a lowering of our environmental standards.

The EU has effectively banned genetically modified crops by requiring impossibly complex, uncertain and lengthy procedures for their approval, and has now ruled that even gene-edited crops (where no “foreign” genetic material is added) must be subject to the same draconian regulations. Crops produced by random bombardment with gamma rays, a less predictable process, are exempt, merely because that is an older technology.

Most maize, cotton and soya bean in the Americas is grown with a gene inserted from a bacterium that kills certain insects but is harmless to humans. It protects the crop against pests but leaves “innocent civilian” insects such as butterflies unharmed. There has been a noticeable improvement in biodiversity in and around such genetically modified crops elsewhere in the world. The greatest irony is that the gene in question, known as Bt, is derived from a bacterium that has been used as an organic pesticide by organic growers for almost a century.

European protectionism does not only discriminate against poor countries, raise costs for domestic consumers and damage the competitiveness of domestic producers. Increasingly it also results in lower environmental standards.

This article was reposted with permission from Rational Optimist

Blog Post | Mental Health

The Kids Need Optimism, Not Doom and Degrowth

Not only is the embrace of degrowth misguided, but research suggests that this doomsday mindset is causing widespread anxiety in young people.

Summary: Degrowth solutions to climate problems are environmentally misguided, and also they foster anxiety and guilt in children, damaging the mental health of young people. Technological innovation is the best path to ecological protection and improved living standards. For these reasons, and also for the improvement of mental health, empowering pro-growth solutions to climate concerns are preferable to degrowth and pessimism.


My kids love nature and we go camping as a family frequently, but as a parent, I’m concerned about some of the messaging they receive on conservation. My husband and I talk about environmental stewardship with our children by emphasizing the eco-modernist approach: Human beings have the unique ability to innovate their way out of problems, creating technological solutions that benefit both people and the planet. Unfortunately, children today are often bombarded with messages of an impending apocalypse that can only be warded off by lowering living standards and embracing “degrowth.”

After a movie at her school about garbage in the oceans left her in tears as a teenager, Greta Thunberg came to believe that “technological solutions” and nondestructive economic growth are “fairytales.” But in the years following that formative experience, scientists have invented cleanup ships that consume ocean plastic as fuel and developed a type of plastic that harmlessly dissolves. Since the 1960s, global carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of gross domestic product have steadily declined, as technologies become greener and businesses cut energy costs. Yet Thunberg’s mindset still mirrors the messages she received growing up.

In the United States, many public elementary schools now devote one day during Earth Week to “zero waste” through the reduction of consumption. But it’s also possible to reduce waste through dematerialization: doing more with less via technology. Just think of all the devices a single smartphone replaces.

Even popular culture sometimes promotes this apocalyptic degrowth mindset to children. In a recent animated Disney movie called Strange World, the characters must give up electricity and drink cold coffee to protect a giant turtle-like creature and save their planet. In reality, protecting wildlife and rising living standards go hand in hand: Beloved species such as the loggerhead turtle are rebounding in wealthy parts of the world, which have far more resources to devote to environmental protection than poor areas. Richer countries usually score higher on Yale’s Environmental Performance Index.

Not only is the embrace of degrowth misguided, but research suggests that this doomsday mindset is causing widespread anxiety in young people. More than half of US youths aged 15–29 report experiencing “eco-anxiety,” a level of psychological distress that affects daily life, according to a 2024 poll. Another 2024 poll found that American middle and high school students’ most commonly reported emotional reactions to the thought of climate change were sadness, discouragement, helplessness, and uneasiness. A peer-reviewed paper explains how “climate anxiety can lead to symptoms such as panic attacks, loss of appetite, irritability, weakness and sleeplessness.” And that anxiety is international: A study from 2021, surveying 10,000 children and young people aged 16–25 in 10 countries, found that 59 percent of respondents were very or extremely worried about climate change, and more than 45 percent of respondents said those feelings negatively affected daily life and basic functioning.

On Earth Day, my kindergartner came home from school having been told a familiar message: Riding a bike is better for the planet than driving a car. Her preschool had emphasized the same idea the year before. Many people love bicycles, but as the economist Tyler Cowen has pointed out, outside of poor countries, most people prefer cars to biking—and for good reason. For instance, without our minivan, it would be nearly impossible for my family to get around with three young kids, along with their snacks, spare clothes, and everything else.

Rather than romanticizing bicycling, what if we focused more on technological solutions that make driving cleaner or reduce commutes? That could mean greater freedom to innovate in fuel efficiency, easing regulations that limit electric cars’ potential to compete with traditional cars in the market, or removing outdated government barriers to remote work—such as telemedicine restrictions—to cut commutes. Zoning reform allowing more housing near workplaces could also reduce commutes and the associated pollution.

Instead of rushing to solutions that require lowering living standards via coercive government mandates or expensive taxpayer-funded subsidies, we should focus on the freedom to make technological advances that raise our standard of living while also mitigating environmental harm. An advantage of that approach is that it may also improve the mental health of young people—which would set this mom’s mind at ease.

This article was originally published in the summer 2025 issue of FreeSociety.

CNN | Conservation & Biodiversity

Colossal Biosciences to De-extinct Giant Flightless Bird

“Genetic engineering startup Colossal Biosciences has added the South Island giant moa — a powerful, long-necked species that stood 10 feet (3 meters) tall and may have kicked in self-defense — to a fast-expanding list of animals it wants to resurrect by genetically modifying their closest living relatives.

The company stirred widespread excitement, as well as controversy, when it announced the birth of what it described as three dire wolf pups in April. Colossal scientists said they had resurrected the canine predator last seen 10,000 years ago by using ancient DNA, cloning and gene-editing technology to alter the genetic make-up of the gray wolf, in a process the company calls de-extinction. Similar efforts to bring back the woolly mammoth, the dodo and the thylacine, better known as the Tasmanian tiger, are also underway. 

To restore the moa, Colossal Biosciences announced Tuesday it would collaborate with New Zealand’s Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, an institution based at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, that was founded to support the Ngāi Tahu, the main Māori tribe of the southern region of New Zealand.

The project would initially involve recovering and analyzing ancient DNA from nine moa species to understand how the giant moa (Dinornis robustus) differed from living and extinct relatives in order to decode its unique genetic makeup, according to a company statement.”

From CNN.

Oceanographic Magazine | Conservation & Biodiversity

Maldives Coral Reef Restoration Takes Pioneering Step Forwards

“Coral reef restoration in the Maldives is taking a pioneering step forwards thanks to a cross-collaborative effort between local marine biologists and scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science that has engaged groundbreaking new technology to enable reef restoration in some of the world’s most remote underwater locations.

Using this pioneering new, portable reef aquaculture system – one known as ReefSeed – researchers from the Maldives Marine Research Initiative (MMRI) have now successfully reared more than three million larvae and deployed more than 10,000 juvenile corals on 720 seeding devices at nine different reef locations.”

From Oceanographic Magazine.

European Environment Agency | Pollution

European Union Reports Pollution Lower in 2023 than in 2005

“In 2023, emissions of all pollutants were lower than in 2005 (or in 2000 for PM) (Table 3.1).Emission trends for NOX, NMVOCs, SOX, NH3 and PM 2.5 are presented in Figure 3.1. For the main pollutants, the largest reductions, in percent, across the EU were for SOX emissions. SOX reduced by 95% since 1990 and by 14% since the previous reporting cycle. This was followed by NOX,which reduced by 66% since 1990 and by 3% since the previous reporting cycle. NMVOCs reduced by 63% since 1990 and by 4% since the previous reporting cycle. NH3 reduced by 36%since 1990, while the emissions did not reduce since the previous reporting cycle. PM 2.5 reduced by 41% since 2000 and by 6% since the previous reporting cycle.”

From European Environment Agency.