Governing uncertain and unknown effects of genetically modified crops (original) (raw)
Related papers
Socio-economic Considerations in Regulatory Decision- making on Genetically Modified Crops
2018
The growing adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide can have socioeconomic benefits for society and farmers, including increased farm profitability, income stability and ease of operation, along with decreased labour and pesticide use, crop losses, and exposure to toxic chemicals. Thus, in addition to national and international regulations on biosafety, countries are increasingly aware of the importance of formalising the inclusion of socio-economic considerations (SECs) into regulatory decision-making. In practice, the complex and varied character of SECs can lead to technical and procedural challenges. Market introductions of biotechnology products have inherent microeconomic and competitive benefits and drawbacks. Socio-economic impacts can be positive or negative: in most cases, both occur but are not necessarily specific to GM crops. Socio-economic analyses generally compare the resources used or gained by a project with either (1) the prevailing situation or (2) ...
Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 2000
Just as a stream of genetically modifiedcrops looked set to be approved for commercialproduction in the European Union, the approvalprocedure appears to have become bogged down onceagain by disagreements among and within member states.Old controversies have resurfaced in new forms. Theintractability of the issues suggests that theregulatory procedure has had too narrow a focus,leaving outside its boundary many of the morefundamental aspects that cause people in the EuropeanUnion most concern. Regulators have come underconsiderable pressure to ensure their risk assessmentdecisions are soundly science-based. Ethical issueshave been deemed to lie beyond the scope of theregulatory procedure, as a matter to be consideredseparately by professional ethicists. Yet it has beensuggested that all environmental controversies at rootinvolve disputes about fundamental ethical principles.This paper examines how the ethical issues arecurrently suppressed or sidelined. It discusses how anappreciation of systems thinking and a check on thevalues that underpin decisions, using boundary testingquestions, might contribute to a more constructiveregulatory dialogue, with ethical issues considered asintegral in a way that takes better account ofpeople's concerns.
Precautionary Uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe
Social Studies of Science, 2001
Through the precautionary principle, governments acknowledge the limits of science as a basis for policy, while seeking to clarify scientific uncertainty. This tension is exemplified by the European risk regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops. The risk debate has been translated into various precautionary approaches, each with its own cognitive framing of the relevant uncertainties. Early safety claims took for granted intensive agricultural models; normative judgements served to downplay uncertainties which were not readily reducible, thus justifying commercial approval of products. In the late 1990s public protest strengthened broader accounts of uncertainty, for example through more stringent environmental norms and more complex causal pathways of potential harm. Fact-finding methods were debated as a value-laden choice for how best to generate more relevant knowledge.
Innovation, Risk, Precaution, and the Regulation of GM Crops
New genetically modified (GM) crops are novel but risky interventions, offering a variety of potential benefits but also the possibility of serious unintended consequences. I address the regulatory framework for GM crops, seeking protection from disproportionate risks without unduly stifling innovation.
Asian Social Science
The rapid growth of world population has increased the demand for Genetically Modified Food (GMF) to fulfill the global nutritional needs. Simultaneously, it also needs to understand the cross-national contexts based on the risk governance of this newly emergence of food technologies. Thus, the paper tries to exhibit a comparison on GMF between United States (US) and European Union (EU) using the risk governance framework. Hence, the study uses the risk governance framework as a model that incorporates risk assessment, concern assessment, risk characterization and evaluation, risk management, and risk communication. The paper is based on secondary source of data collection and the two areas (US and EU) is purposively selected for this comparative discussion. The result shows recent controversies on usage of GMF between US and EU highlighting the apparent differences that does exist in all spheres of risk governance.
Responding Public Demand for Assurance of Genetically Modified Crops: Case from Japan
Journal of Risk Research, 2006
Genetically modified (GM) crops provide a classic example of risk characterised with uncertainty and ambiguity. This article analyses the risk management of GM crops in Japan as a case and investigates how the Japanese government has responded to the growing public demand for safety assurance of new agricultural and food varieties. It argues that, while the government realised the need
International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 2005
From 1999 to 2004 the European Union had in place a moratorium on new genetically modified (GM) products. This moratorium created a tense trade dispute between the United States and the EU. While the moratorium has now been lifted, differences remain between the EU's and US's approach to GM products. The essence of the conflict involves differing approaches to the rate of technological transfer. The US advocates a rapid rate of technological transfer, while the EU advocates a slow and cautious rate. The EU's 'proceed slowly' approach is grounded in the controversial precautionary principle (PP). Crudely, the PP places the burden of proof on the developers of new technologies like GM to show that their products do not pose a threat to human health or the environment. While the PP has grown in influence in Europe over the last three decades policymakers in the US have largely rejected it. The following enquiry will examine the justifications for these conflicting perspectives on precaution toward technological transfer of GM, or transgenic research. The ultimate goal is to shed light on the role of policymakers in dealing with the uncertainties associated with this new and powerful technology.
Inclusive governance over agricultural biotechnology: risk assessment and public participation
Law, Innovation and Technology, 2017
A public outcry opposing the use of genetic modification of rice has produced a governance deadlock in China, which threatens to undermine attempts to reap the benefits that modern agricultural biotechnology can offer to the Chinese people. It is argued that this opposition to the agricultural use of modern technology is, in large part, the result, not only of lack of public participation in the decisions involved, but of an over-reliance on conventional approaches to risk assessment that do not adequately take account of the interests of all who stand to be affected by the use of the technology. Public participation is necessary, but it must be guided by equitable principles that take proper account of the rights and interests of all stakeholders. It is argued that a governance strategy based on the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) of the American philosopher Alan Gewirth has promise to counter the distrust of the regulators that fuels the deadlock because the PGC can be justified from the perspective of Marxist and Confucian principles that dominate the Chinese political and ethical landscape.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 2018
Panels of experts with specialized knowledge and experience are often convened to identify and analyze information relevant for risk assessments of GM crops. A perspective on the use of such scientific expert panels is shared here based on panels convened to inform the regulatory strategy for three separate projects developing GM crops for cultivation in Africa: a nutritionally enhanced sorghum, an insect resistant cowpea, and a virus resistant cassava. The panels were convened specifically to consider the risks associated with gene flow from a genetically modified (GM) crop to naturally occurring 'wild' relatives of that crop. In these cases, the experts used problem formulation to identify effects that regulatory authorities may consider to be harmful ("harms") and formulate plausible scenarios that might lead to them, and the availability of information that could determine the likelihood of the steps in the pathway. These panels and the use of problem formulation worked well to gather the existing information and consider the likelihood of harm from gene flow in centers of diversity. However, one important observation from all of these cases is that it is outside the remit of such scientific expert panels to make decisions dependent on policy, such as which harms should be considered and what information should be considered essential in order for a regulatory authority to make a decision about the acceptable level of risk. These experiences of expert panels to inform GM crop risk assessment demonstrate the challenge of integrating science and policy for effective regulatory decision-making.