A Precautionary Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Implications for Policy and Science
- 982 Downloads
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.
KeywordsThe precautionary principle Precautionary approach GMO regulations Genetically modified organisms Scientific uncertainty Sustainable development
The author would like to thank a number of anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
- 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.
- CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2000). http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol. Accessed June 15, 2006.
- Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. (2003). UK http://www.aebc.gov.uk/. Accessed June 20, 2006.
- Barber, S. (2007). What are we waiting for? EU, Parliament magazine, Jan 29, 2007.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- CEC. European Council Directive 2001/18/EC. http://www.europa.eu.int/commm/food/fs/sc/scp/out31_en.html. Accessed Oct 25, 2004.
- Dreyer, M., Renn, O. (Eds.). (2009). Food safety governance. Integrating science, precaution and public involvement. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Eurobarometer. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Pattern and trends, Eurobarometer 64.3, G. Gaskell et al., Brussels: EC D-G research.Google Scholar
- Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Heller, R. (2003). GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- O′Riordan, T., & Cameron, J. (1994). Interpreting the precautionary principle. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
- Raffensperger, C., & Tickner, J. (1999). Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Regulations relating to impact assessment pursuant to the Gene Technology Act. (2005). http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/acts-and-regulations/regulations/2005/regulations-relating-to-impact-assessmen.html?id=440455.
- Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. (1992). Un.Doc/Co:NF.151/5/REV.1.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- The New Zealand Commission. (2001). http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/.
- UNESCO COMEST. (2005). The Precautionary principle, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001395/139578e.pdf Accessed Oct 13, 2006.
- 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
- 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
- Weiss, C. (2006). Can there be science-based precaution?. Environmental Research Letters, 1–7Google Scholar
- Weiss, C. (2007). Defining precaution. Environment, 49.8, 36–39.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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