Proponents of market approval argued that the Directive encompasses only 'product safety', that is, the direct ecological effects of the GMO or its inserted genes. Also in dispute were the effects on agriculture itself. Thus an implicit technology assessment enters their safety judgement. As regards such advantages, regulatory practice is more complex than the term 'benefits' can convey. Officially, the UK assesses only whether each release poses 'a risk', though presumed benefits may influence advisers in defining evidence of safety, or even in defining environmental harm.
Some regulators explicitly consider presumed benefits, though of diverse types.
For example, Italy considers economic benefits, but not environmental benefits. The Directive aimed to 'establish harmonised procedures and criteria', especially for Europe-wide approval of commercial products. In practice, however, member states have given different interpretations to key statutory terms and each marketing application has led to disputes over which potential effects must be prevented, as well as over product labelling. Presumed benefits of products have no agreed criteria, yet may influence working definitions of environmental harm. In all these ways, safety decisions cannot avoid an implicit technology assessment on product design, and thus on the research and development trajectory of agricultural biotechnology.