Modern biotechnology has gradually attracted ever greater interest over the past four decades, from ever-widening communities across the world—from academic scientists, of course, and then from industrialists, journalists, medical specialists, agricultural practitioners, environmental “experts,” economists, trading companies—and, so far as it concerns regulation, above all from political interests whose product is indeed legislation. As the interests widened, conflicts developed: between departments, between sectors, between countries and between international agencies. The European Community made choices, bitterly contested; the battles on conducting and regulating the field release of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) were usually won—at least in Europe—by the environment ministries, often in conflict with agriculture and/or the research and science ministries. The result has been the construction over the past 30 y of an ever heavier regulatory burden on those who seek to develop and launch products based on the use of modern biotechnology. The pretense is labeled “the precautionary principle.” No lives have been saved, but many jobs have been created in bureaucracies large and small around the world. So far as academia was concerned, their experiments and field trials were repeatedly wrecked by NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming thus to have saved mankind and the environment. This is a story of grave political failure in Europe with globally adverse consequences.