Advertisement

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 501–525 | Cite as

A Precautionary Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Implications for Policy and Science

  • Anne Ingeborg Myhr
Articles

Abstract

The commercial introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has revealed a broad range of views among scientists and other stakeholders on perspectives of genetic engineering (GE) and if and how GMOs should be regulated. Within this controversy, the precautionary principle has become a contentious issue with high support from skeptical groups but resisted by GMO advocates. How to handle lack of scientific understanding and scientific disagreement are core issues within these debates. This article examines some of the key issues affecting precaution as a legal standard and as an approach to the use of science in decision-making processes. It is pointed out that there is a need for reflection over the level of scientific evidence required for applying the precautionary principle as well as who should have the burden of proof when there are uncertainties. Further, an awareness of the broader scientific uncertainties found in GMO risk assessment implies that a precautionary approach must be elaborated: both for acknowledging uncertainties and for identification of scientific responses. Since precaution is an important issue within the sustainable development framework, it is suggested that sustainability can provide a normative standard that can help to reveal the influence and negotiate the importance of the various forms of uncertainty. Wise management of uncertainties and inclusion of normative aspects in risk assessment and management may help to ensure sustainable and socially robust GMO innovations at present and in the future.

Keywords

The precautionary principle Precautionary approach GMO regulations Genetically modified organisms Scientific uncertainty Sustainable development 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank a number of anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. Gene Technology Act. (1993). The act relating to the production and use of genetically modified organism. Act no. 38 of 2 April 1993, Oslo. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Gene-Technology-Act.html?id=173031.
  2. CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2000). http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol. Accessed June 15, 2006.
  3. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. (2003). UK http://www.aebc.gov.uk/. Accessed June 20, 2006.
  4. Andow, D. A., & Hilbeck, A. (2004). Science-based risk assessment for non-target effects of transgenic crops. BioScience, 54, 637–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andow, D. A., & Zwahlen, C. (2006). Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecological Letters, 9, 196–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber, S. (2007). What are we waiting for? EU, Parliament magazine, Jan 29, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Burgman, M. A. (2005). Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrd, D. M., & Cothern, R. (2000). Introduction to risk analysis. A systematic approach to science-based decision making. Rockville, MD, USA: Government Institutes.Google Scholar
  9. CEC. Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. (2000). http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2003.
  10. CEC. European Council Directive 2001/18/EC. http://www.europa.eu.int/commm/food/fs/sc/scp/out31_en.html. Accessed Oct 25, 2004.
  11. Daily, G. C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P. R., et al. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289, 395–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Melo-Martin, I., & Meghani, Z. (2008). Beyond risk. EMBO Reports, 9, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devos, Y., Maeseele, P., Reheul, D., Van Speybroeck, L., & De Waele, D. (2008). Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (Re)quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreyer, M., Renn, O. (Eds.). (2009). Food safety governance. Integrating science, precaution and public involvement. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Duan, J. J., Teixeira, D., Huesing, J. E., & Jiang, C. (2008). Assessing the risk to nontarget organisms from Bt corn resistant to corn rootworms (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): Tier-I testing with Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Environmental Entomology, 37, 838–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EEA: European Environment Agency. (2002). Late lessons from early warnings. The precautionary principle 1896–2000, http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/. Accessed Oct 25, 2007.
  17. Eurobarometer. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Pattern and trends, Eurobarometer 64.3, G. Gaskell et al., Brussels: EC D-G research.Google Scholar
  18. Foster, K. R., Vecchia, P., & Repacholi, M. H. (2000). Science and the precautionary principle. Science, 288, 979–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Gillund, F., Kjølberg, K., Krayer von Krauss, M., & Myhr, A. I. (2008). Do uncertainty analyses reveal uncertainties? Using the introduction of DNA vaccines to aquaculture as a case. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, J. D., & Wiener, J. B. (2008). The precautionary principle and risk-risk tradeoffs: A comment. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haller, S. F., & Gerrie, J. (2007). The role of science in public policy: Higher reason, or reason for hire. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haslberger, A. G. (2006). Need for an “integrated safety assessment” of GMOs, linking food safety and environmental considerations. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 54, 3173–3180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heller, R. (2003). GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  25. Hilbeck, A., & Schmidt, J. E. U. (2006). Another view on Bt proteins–How specific are they and what else might they do? Biopesticides International, 2, 1–50.Google Scholar
  26. Kapuscinski, A. R., Goodman, R. M., Hann, S. D., Jacobs, L. R., Pullins, E. E., Johnson, C. S., et al. (2003). Making safety first a reality (2003). Making safety first a reality for biotechnology products. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 599–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karlsson, M. (2006). The Precautionary Principle, Swedish chemicals policy and sustainable development. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krayer von Krauss, M. P., Casman, E. A., & Small, M. J. (2004). Elicitation of expert judgments of uncertainty in the risk assessment of herbicide tolerant oilseed crops. Journal of Risk Analysis, 24, 1515–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krayer von Krauss, M. P., Kaiser, M., Almaas, V., van der Sluijs, J., & Kloprogge, P. (2008). Diagnosing and prioritizing uncertainties according to their relevance for policy: the case of transgene silencing. Science of the Total Environment, 390, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E. L., et al. (2001). The Precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 871–876.Google Scholar
  31. Kvakkestad, V., Gillund, F., Kjølberg, K. A., & Vatn, A. (2007). Scientists′ perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environmental Values, 16, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemons, J., Schrader-Frechette, K. S., & Cranor, C. (1997). The Precautionary principle; scientific uncertainty and type I and type II errors. Foundations of Science, 2, 207–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levidow, L. (2001). Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science, 31, 842–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2007). GM crops on trial: Technological development as a real-world experiment. Futures, 39, 408–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lövei, G. L., & Arpaia, S. (2005). The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies; a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomologica Experimentalis et Applicata, 114, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marvier, M. (2002). Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecological Applications, 12, 1119–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayer, S., & Stirling, A. (2004). GM crops: Good or bad? EMBO reports, 5, 1021–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris, J. (2002). The relationships between risk analysis and the precautionary principle. Toxicology, 181–182, 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2003). Sustainable development and Norwegian genetic engineering regulations: Applications, impacts and challenges. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2007). Poxvirus-vectored vaccines call for application of the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research, 10, 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nielsen, K. M., & Myhr, A. I. (2007). Understanding the uncertainties arising from technological inventions in complex biological systems: The case of GMOs. In T. Traavik & L. C. Lim (Eds.), Biosafety first: Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (pp. 107–123). Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. O′Riordan, T., & Cameron, J. (1994). Interpreting the precautionary principle. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  43. Raffensperger, C., & Tickner, J. (1999). Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ray, N., & Burgman, M. A. (2006). Subjective uncertainties in habitat suitability maps. Ecological Modeling, 195, 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raybould, A. (2007). Ecological versus ecotoxcological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Science, 173, 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, A. (2002). A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 12, 618–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Regan, H. M., et al. (2003). Treatments of uncertainty and variability in ecological risk assessment of single-species populations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9, 889–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. (1992). Un.Doc/Co:NF.151/5/REV.1.Google Scholar
  49. Romeis, J., Bartsch, D., Bigler, F., Candolfi, M. P., Gielkens, M. M. C., Hartley, S. E., et al. (2008). Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosendal, K., Myhr, A. I. (2008). GMO Assessment in Norway as compared to EU procedures: Societal utility and sustainable development, DN evaluations 2–2009. Trondheim, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, p. 52, (see short version Myhr, A. I., Rosendal, G. K. (2009) GMO assessment in Norway: Societal utility and sustainable development’. EMBO Reports, 10, 2–3).Google Scholar
  51. Sandin, P. (2004). The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environmental Values, 13, 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sanvido, O., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2007). Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops. Ten years of experiences from ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Advances in Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology, 107, 235–278.Google Scholar
  53. Sanvido, O., Widmer, F., Winzeler, M., & Bigler, F. (2005). A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants. Environmental Biosafety Research, 4, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stirling, A. (2007). Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO reports, 8, 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stirling, A. (2008). Science, precaution and the politics of technological risk. Annuals of New York Academy of Sciences, 1128, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stirling, A., Mayer, S. (1999). Rethinking risk, a pilot multi-criteria mapping of genetically modified crop in agriculture systems in the UK, University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit, UK.Google Scholar
  58. The New Zealand Commission. (2001). http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/.
  59. UNESCO COMEST. (2005). The Precautionary principle, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001395/139578e.pdf Accessed Oct 13, 2006.
  60. Van der Sluijs, J. P. (1997). Anchoring amid uncertainty: On the management of uncertainties in risk assessment of anthropogenic climate change, Ph.D dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  61. Von Schomberg, R. (2006). The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In E. Fisher, et al. (Eds.), Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspetives and prospects (pp. 19–42). UK: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  62. Walker, W. E., Harremoöes, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., et al. (2003). Defining uncertainty; a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model based decision support. Journal of Integrated Assessment, 4, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weaver, S. A., & Morris, M. C. (2005). Risks associated with genetic modification:–An annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiss, C. (2003). Scientific uncertainty and science based precaution. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weiss, C. (2006). Can there be science-based precaution?. Environmental Research Letters, 1–7Google Scholar
  66. Weiss, C. (2007). Defining precaution. Environment, 49.8, 36–39.Google Scholar
  67. Wickson, F., Gillund, F. and Myhr, A. I. (2010). Treating nanoparticles with precaution: The importance of recognising qualitative uncertainty in scientific risk assessment. In: K. Kjølberg, F. Wickson (Eds.), Nano goes macro, social perspectives on nanoscience and nanotechnology. Pan Stanford Publishing. (in press).Google Scholar
  68. Wiener, J. B., & Rogers, M. D. (2002). Comparing precaution in the US and Europe. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolfenbarger, L. L., Naranjo, S. E., Lundgren, J. G., Bitzer, R. J., & Watrud, L. S. (2008). Bt crop effects on functional guilds of non-target Arthropods: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(5), e2118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088–2093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics of GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wynne, B., Felt, U. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. (Chair and Rapporteur) Expert group on science and governance, Brussels, European Commission D-G Research, Science Economy and Society Directorate. EUR 22700.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GenØk-Center for BiosafetyTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations