Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The Struggle Over Genetically Modified Organisms (original) (raw)
Related papers
In the European Union GMOs are hardly utilized in food and agriculture but constitute a public problem, whereas in the USA, they are widely utilized and yet do not exist on the public policy agenda. This paradoxical situation was particularly apparent between 1997 and 1999, and was commonly explained by referring to cultural differences. Thus, commentators frequently stated that Americans are technophile whereas Europeans are technophobic; that Americans trust their regulators whereas Europeans, especially following the BSE crisis, do not; and that Americans are less attached to the cultural identity of their foods than Europeans. We suggest that these hypothesized explanations have not been substantiated, and that the idea that American consumers have accepted GMOs is unconvincing. Furthermore, we argue that focusing exclusively on public perceptions is in any case not sufficient to explain how an issue becomes a public problem. It is also necessary to analyze the mechanics of agenda-setting, by following the actors involved and identifying the different frames of reference utilized, with more or less success, in different arenas ( scientific, regulatory, legal, political, media...). We analyze these processes in France and the USA during the period 1996-2000 and identify three key themes which crystallize the debate on both sides of the Atlantic: (i) the issue of labeling of GM-food products; (ii) questions of agricultural policy focalized around "Terminator" technology (farmer dependence on biotechnology corporations and monopolistic "food power" in the hands of a few firms); (iii) controversies about framing issues in risk assessment, emphasized by the Monarch butterfly affair.
Lay Public or Experts? e‐Participation in Authorization for GMO Products in the European Union
In the European Union, for the first time, lay people can participate directly in the procedure of assessment of GMO (genetically modified organisms) products, an exercise normally reserved for scientists and legal experts. What makes this a unique strategy of participation is that for each single application for authorization, lay people have the opportunity to express their views. This article presents the result of the first in-depth analysis of this type of Internet participatory exercise in the first years of its implementation. It shows that, despite generally participatory technology assessment aims at deliberative consensus on technical questions, this forum is instead a way to expose the work of regulative authorities to public scrutiny and to express dissent and opposition to the European Commission policy on GMOs.
2005
The thesis explores how public controversies over agricultural biotechnology have been sought to be mitigated through procedures of public involvement in policy making in three different European countries (Denmark, the UK, and Germany). The thesis surveys social research on the reasons for public discontent over GM food, and identifies and discusses a certain set o f ideas on how to deal with technological controver sies, summarised under the heading of public participation and inclusion. It is argued that the ideals of public participation are increasingly propagated as a means to mediate in risk controversies. With inspiration from autopoietic systems theory and Cultural Theory, the social structural roots of controversies about technologies considered to be risky are identified and theo retically analysed. The controversies are argued to be rooted in tensions in functionally dif ferentiated modem societies, between dependency on expert knowledge, which is by nature socially a...
Biotechnology and Public opinion: The results of a citizens’ jury case study
2013
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have been a controversial topic in recent years: while the scientific community has largely accepted the validity and safety of using this biotechnology in the food industry, public opinion still shows a certain suspicion and fear. The legislator is interested in knowing how public opinion could be engaged and what policy decisions regarding the assessment of the risks and benefits of GM animals and derived products might be addressed. This paper focuses on a Citizens’ Jury event organized in Parma (Italy) in 2012 in the context of the EU project PEGASUS (Public Perception of Genetically modified Animals – Science, Utility and Society, 7th FP). The main goal of the Citizens’ Jury was to address public perspectives and demonstrate ‘best practice’ in public engagement in order to develop future policy recommendations regarding innovation in the area of GM animals. The process, the potential role of citizens’ juries as a technique for engaging with...
The Role of Participation in a Techno-Scientific Controversy: Work Package 6 GM Food
The WP examines the role played by public participation in the regulation of agricultural biotechnology in Europe. In particular it aims: to understand the development of the social controversy over the use of agricultural biotechnology in Europe; to identify, categorise and assess existing and emerging participatory practices in Europe, and assess the way in which they have succeeded in generating innovative governance and active trust, with attention to the „inclusiveness‟ of participation in terms of gender, age, class and ethnicity; to analyse tensions and conflicts between emergent participatory governance practices at the national level and transnational bodies such as the EU and WTO; and to draw out implications for the effective design of participatory institutions.
Does Controversial Science Call For Public Participation? The Case Of Gmo Skepticism
Les ateliers de l'éthique
Many instances of new and emerging science and technology are controversial. Although a number of people, including scientific experts, welcome these developments, a considerable skepticism exists among members of the public. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case in point. In science policy and in science communication, it is widely assumed that such controversial science and technology require public participation in the policy-making process. We examine this view, which we call the Public Participation Paradigm, using the case of GMOs as an example. We suggest that a prominent reason behind the call for public participation is the belief that such participation is required for democratic legitimacy. We then show that the most prominent accounts of democratic legitimacy do not, in fact, entail that public participation is required in cases of controversial science in general, or in the case of GMOs in particular.
Investigating the recent direct action campaigns against genetically modified crops in France and the United Kingdom, the authors set out to understand how contrasting judicial systems and cultures affect the way that activists choose to commit ostensibly illegal actions and how they negotiate the trade-offs between effectiveness and public accountability. The authors find evidence that prosecution outcomes across different judicial systems are consistent and relatively predictable and consequently argue that the concept of a "judicial opportunity structure" is useful for developing scholars' understanding of social movement trajectories. The authors also find that these differential judicial opportunities cannot adequately account for the tactical choices made by activists with respect to the staging of covert or overt direct action; rather, explanations of tactical choice are better accounted for by movement ideas, cultures, and traditions.