We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organisms (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. The first in a three-part series, this article focuses on reform options related to the scope of the legislation and the GMO definition.

It has recently been argued that the fragmented knowledge on the social impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops is contributing to the polarised debate on the matter. This paper addresses this issue by systematically reviewing 99 peer-reviewed journal articles published since 2004 on the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture; summarising current knowledge, and identifying research gaps. Economic impact studies currently dominate the literature and mainly report that GM crops provide economic benefits for farmers. Other social impacts are less well studied, but present a more complex picture. Studies on access to and benefits of GM crops show that these vary significantly depending on the political and regulatory setting. Substantial evidence indicates that intellectual property rights (IPR) and the private industry’s dominance limit the access and utility of available GM crops to many farmers. Wellbeing is frequently discussed in the literature, but rarely investigated empirically. Existing evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Impact studies from the Global North are virtually non-existent. Moreover, two-thirds of publications are based on previously published empirical evidence, indicating a need for new empirical investigations into the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture.

Empirical evidence suggests that climate change will hit women disproportionately hard. Lack of political power, small economic resources, gender-bound patterns in the division of labour, entrenched cultural patterns and possibly biological differences in heat sensitivity combine to make women and girls particularly vulnerable to extreme weather and other climate-related events. Adaptation responses will likely reduce some of these vulnerabilities. However, just as climate change is likely to impact more severely on women than men, the costs and benefits of adaptation could be unevenly distributed between the sexes. Unless adaptation measures are carefully designed from a gender perspective, they may contribute to preserving prevailing gender inequalities and reinforce women's vulnerability to climate change. Institutions and decision-making processes need to be remodelled so as to guarantee that gender issues are adequately targeted within adaptation. This article identifies a number of methodologies and decision tools that could be used to mainstream gender in local adaptation planning.

Biodiversity offsetting is an increasingly applied tool aiming to compensate for environmental damage caused by exploitation projects. Critics, however, raise concerns over the purported effectiveness of offsetting and question the ethical underpinnings and implications of offsetting. But these ethical dimensions have largely been overlooked in research, which may lead to offsetting systems that fail to respect the values intended to be safeguarded. To address these dimensions five ethical objections in the scientific literature are identified: (1) offsetting violates nature's intrinsic value; (2) losses of nature cannot be compensated for by human interventions; (3) too little is known to make adequate trades; (4) offsetting impedes virtuous dispositions toward nature; and (5) offsetting has negative justice implications. These objections, and arguments against them, are described and analyzed using the ethical concepts of intrinsic and instrumental values, and anthropocentrism and non‐anthropocentrism, as well as deontological, consequentialist, and virtue‐ethical paradigms. Ten recommendations to policy‐makers and five questions to practitioners are offered to aid decision‐making on biodiversity offsetting. The recommendations concern both policy and legislation, for example on the need to clarify aims and how to use flexibilities and multipliers. The questions mainly focus on process‐related issues. Hopefully, these recommendations and questions will encourage further discussion of the ethics of biodiversity offsets, which ultimately may help to respect the values of biodiversity and human welfare at stake. Article impact statement : Five ethical objections should be considered in the design and implementation of biodiversity offsetting. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved