Abstract
The introduction of genetically modified plants into the environment has been marked by different positions, either in favor of or against their release. However, the problem goes well beyond such contradictory positions; it is necessary to take into account the legislation, ethics, biosafety, and the environment in the considerations related to the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To this end, the Brazilian Committee of Biosafety (CTNBio), a consultative and deliberative multidisciplinary collegiate, provides technical and advisory support to the Brazilian Federal Government. This committee consists of scientists and non-scientists who participate in evaluating the dossiers of companies that are requesting approval by the Brazilian Government; consequently, the aim of this study was to investigate whether commercial approvals of GMOs were associated with the profile of the CTNBio members. Research was based on the minutes taken at CTNBio meetings carried out from 2006 up to 2009, considering law 11.105/2005 and the Constitution of 1988 as legal frameworks, to determine the number of voters in favor of or against releasing genetically modified Bt-maize, Bt-cotton, and herbicide resistant soybeans to be used in Brazilian agriculture. Via the internet, we had access to the curriculum vitae of the CTNBio members through the Plataforma Lattes database of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), where we found their area of expertise. CTNBio members were divided into expert-for, expert-against, non-expert-for, and non-expert-against. Results showed that CTNBio decisions could be based on technical criteria as well as on the policy of the institution that expert-members were representing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andow, D. A., & Hilbeck, A. (2004). Science-based risk assessment for non-target effects of transgenic crops. BioScience, 54(7), 637–649.
Ashcroft, R. E. (2004). Bioethics and conflict of interest. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 35, 155–165.
Batie, S. S. (2001). Transgenic crops and the environment: Missing markets and public roles. Environment and Development Economics, 6, 435–457.
De Greef, W. (2007). Biosafety regulation. In: Regional consultation on biotech cotton for risk assessment and opportunities for small scale cotton growers. http://www.icac.org/cotton_info/tis/biotech/documents/recorderdocs/june_2007.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2011.
De Maagd, R. A., Bosch, D., & Stiekema, W. (1999). Bacillus thuringiensis toxin-mediated insect resistance in plants. Trends in Plant Science, 4(1), 9–13.
Deckers, J. (2005). Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? Reflections on discussion of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 451–478.
Dhlamini, Z. (2009). Chapter 1: Agricultural biotechnology. In: M. K. A. Chowdhury, M. I. Hoque & A. Sonnino (Eds.), Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms: Basic concepts, methods and issues (pp. 1–50). http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1252e/i1252e.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2011.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2001). Ethics in food and agriculture. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/003/X9601e/X9601e00.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2011.
Glare, R. T., O’Callaghan, M. (1998). Environmental and health impacts of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis. Report for the Ministry of Health. Biocontrol & Biodiversity (pp. 1–58). http://www.beyondpesticides.org/mosquito/documents/BacillusThuringiensisIsraelensisNZ.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2011.
James, C. (2009). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications—ISAAA, Brief 41.
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In search of ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jonas, H. (2006). O Principio da Responsabilidade. Rio de Janeiro: Editora PUC-RJ.
Ludgren, J. G., Gassmann, A. J., Bernal, J., Duan, J. J., & Ruberson, J. (2009). Ecological compatibility of GM crops and biological control. Crop Protection, 28, 1017–1030.
Marvier, M., McCreedy, C., Regetz, J., & Kareiva, P. (2007). A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science, 316, 1475–14778.
O’Callaghan, M., Glare, T. R., Burgess, E. P. J., & Malone, L. A. (2005). Effects of Plants Genetically Modified for insect resistance on Nontarget Organisms. Annual Review of Entomology, 50, 271–292.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Consensus Document on Safety information on transgenic plants expressing Bacillus thuringiensis—derived insect control proteins. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/reg-biotech.pdf. Accessed April 7, 2011.
Prabhu, K. V. (2009). Chapter 4: Use of GMOs under containment, confined and limited field trials and post-release monitoring of GMOs. In: M. K. A. Chowdhury, M. I. Hoque & A. Sonnino (Eds.), Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms: Basic concepts, methods and issues (pp. 157–220). http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1252e/i1252e.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2011.
Russell, A. W. (2008). GMOs and their contexts: A comparison of potential and actual performance of GM crops in a local agricultural setting. Geoforum, 39, 213–222.
Weale, C. (2010). Ethical arguments relevant to the use of GM crops. New Biotechnology, 27, 582–587.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Braña, G.M.R., Miranda-Vilela, A.L. & Grisolia, C.K. A Study of How Experts and Non-Experts Make Decisions on Releasing Genetically Modified Plants. J Agric Environ Ethics 25, 675–685 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9347-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9347-x