Transgenic Research

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 933–943 | Cite as

Towards a more open debate about values in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology

  • Yann Devos
  • Olivier Sanvido
  • Joyce Tait
  • Alan Raybould
ISBGMO12

Abstract

Regulatory decision-making over the use of products of new technology aims to be based on science-based risk assessment. In some jurisdictions, decision-making about the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plants is blocked supposedly because of scientific uncertainty about risks to the environment. However, disagreement about the acceptability of risks is primarily a dispute over normative values, which is not resolvable through natural sciences. Natural sciences may improve the quality and relevance of the scientific information used to support environmental risk assessments and make scientific uncertainties explicit, but offer little to resolve differences about values. Decisions about cultivating GM plants will thus not necessarily be eased by performing more research to reduce scientific uncertainty in environmental risk assessments, but by clarifying the debate over values. We suggest several approaches to reveal values in decision-making: (1) clarifying policy objectives; (2) determining what constitutes environmental harm; (3) making explicit the factual and normative premises on which risk assessments are based; (4) better demarcating environmental risk assessment studies from ecological research; (5) weighing the potential for environmental benefits (i.e., opportunities) as well as the potential for environmental harms (i.e., risks); and (6) expanding participation in the risk governance of GM plants. Recognising and openly debating differences about values will not remove controversy about the cultivation of GM plants. However, by revealing what is truly in dispute, debates about values will clarify decision-making criteria.

Keywords

Controversy Environmental risk assessment Genetically modified plants Governance Values 

References

  1. ACRE (2007) Managing the footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), United Kingdom. Available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080727101330/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/fsewiderissues/pdf/acre-wi-final.pdf
  2. Arjó G, Portero M, Piñol C, Viñas J, Matias-Guiu X, Capell T, Bartholomaeus A, Parrott W, Christou P (2013) Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Res 22:255–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carpenter JE (2011) Impacts of GM crops on biodiversity. GM Crops 2:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. COGEM (2009) Socio-economic aspects of GMOs: building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops. Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM), The Netherlands. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/reports_studies/docs/Netherlands_annex_Cogem_report_en.pdf
  5. Collins H, Weinel M, Evans R (2010) The politics and policy of the third wave: new technologies and society. Crit Policy Stud 4:185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Craig W, Tepfer M, Degrassi G, Ripandelli D (2008) An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Euphytica 164:853–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deblonde M, du Jardin P (2005) Deepening a precautionary European policy. J Agric Environ Ethic 18:319–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. J Agric Environ Ethic 21:29–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devos Y, Hails RS, Messéan A, Perry JN, Squire GR (2012) Feral genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape from seed import spills: are concerns scientifically justified? Transgenic Res 21:1–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devos Y, Aguilera J, Diveki Z, Gomes A, Liu Y, Paoletti C, du Jardin P, Herman L, Perry JN, Waigmann E (2013) EFSA’s scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence—looking back and ahead. Transgenic Res. doi:10.1007/s11248-013-9741-4 Google Scholar
  11. EC (2011) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation on the basis of Member States contributions, as requested by the Conclusions of the Environment Council of December 2008. European Commission (EC), Belgium. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/reports_studies/docs/socio_economic_report_gmo_en.pdf
  12. Eckerstorfer M, Gaugitsch H (2013) Framing socio-economic assessment in GMO & chemicals regulation. Workshop report. European Environment Agency (EEA), Denmark. Available from http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/gentechnik/EEA-SEA_Dec2012/Summary-report_EEA-Workshop-SEA_6-7Dec2012.pdf
  13. EFSA (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants—challenges and approaches. EFSA scientific colloquium series 8, June 2007. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Italy. Available from http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/colloquiagmoera.pdf
  14. EFSA (2011) Statistical significance and biological relevance. EFSA J 9:1–17Google Scholar
  15. Evans J, Wood G, Miller A (2006) The risk assessment–policy gap: an example from the UK contaminated land regime. Environ Int 32:1066–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia-Alanso M, Raybould A (2013) Protection goals in environmental risk assessment: a practical approach. Transgenic Res (in press)Google Scholar
  17. Gaskell G, Einsiedel E, Hallman W, Priest SH, Jackson J, Olsthoorn J (2005) Social values and the governance of science. Science 310:1908–1909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Genus A, Coles AM (2005) On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in Technology Assessment. Technol Anal Strateg 17:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gray AJ (2004) Ecology and government policies: the GM crop debate. J Appl Ecol 41:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gray A (2012) Problem formulation in environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: a practitioner’s approach. Collect Biosafety Rev 6:10–65Google Scholar
  21. Greiter A, Miklau M, Heissenberger A, Gaugitsch H (2011) Socioeconomic aspects in the assessment of GMOs—options for action. Environment Agency Austria Vienna, 2011, Reports, Band 0354, ISBN: 978-3-99004-157-4. Umweltbundesamt, Austria. Available from http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/REP0354.pdf
  22. Hagendijk R, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayes KR (2011) Uncertainty and uncertainty analysis methods: Issues in quantitative and qualitative risk modeling with application to import risk assessment ACERA project (0705). Report number: EP102467. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia. Available from http://www.acera.unimelb.edu.au/materials/endorsed/0705a_final-report.pdf
  24. Herman R, Garcia-Alonso M, Layton R, Raybould A (2013) Bringing policy relevance and scientific discipline to ERA for GM crops. Trends Biotechnol 31:493–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrick C, Jamieson D (2001) Junk science and environmental policy: obscuring public debate with misleading discourse. Philos Public Policy Q 21:11–16Google Scholar
  26. Hilbeck A, Meier M, Römbke J, Jänsch S, Teichmann H, Tappeser B (2011) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants—concepts and controversies. Environ Sci Eur 23:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hilbeck A, Meier M, Trtikova M (2012) Underlying reasons of the controversy over adverse effects of Bt toxins on lady beetle and lacewing larvae. Environ Sci Eur 24:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosafety Res 2:81–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36:299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaffe G (2006) Regulatory slowdown on GM crop decisions. Nat Biotechnol 24:748–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen KK, Gamborg C, Madsen KH, Jørgensen RB, Krayer von Krauss M, Folker AP, Sandøe P (2003) Making the EU ‘risk window’ transparent: the normative foundation of risk assessment of GMOs. Environ Biosafety Res 3:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson KL, Raybould A, Hudoson MD, Poppy GM (2007) How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci 12:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karlsson M (2003) Ethics of sustainable development—a study of Swedish regulations for genetically modified organisms. J Agric Environ Ethic 16:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuntz M (2012) The postmodern assault on science. EMBO Rep 13:885–889PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuntz M, Davison J, Ricroch AE (2013) What the French ban of Bt MON810 maize means for science-based risk assessment. Nat Biotechnol 33:498–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lackey RT (2007) Science, scientists and policy advocacy. Conserv Biol 21:12–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawton JH (2007) Ecology, politics and policy. J Appl Ecol 44:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemaux PG (2009) Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part II). Ann Rev Plant Biol 60:511–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leshner AI (2005) Where science meets society. Science 307:815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lusser M, Raney T, Tillie P, Dillen K, Rodríguez Cerezo E (2012) International workshop on socioeconomic impacts of genetically modified crops co-organised by JRCIPTS and FAO; JRC Science and Policy reports EUR 25265 EN. Joint Research Centre (JRC), Spain. Available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/ap016e/ap016e.pdf
  42. Madsen KH, Sandøe P (2005) Ethical reflections on herbicide-resistant crops. Pest Manag Sci 61:318–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marsden T (2008) Agri-food contestations in rural space: GM in its regulatory context. Geoforum 39:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Masip G, Sabalza M, Pérez-Massot E, Banakar R, Cebrian D, Twyman RM, Capell T, Albajes R, Christou P (2013) Paradoxical EU agricultural policies on genetically engineered crops. Trends Plant Sci 18:312–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mayer S, Stirling A (2002) Finding a precautionary approach to technological development—lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. J Agric Environ Ethic 15:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayer S, Stirling A (2004) GM crops: good or bad? EMBO Rep 5:1021–1024PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller HI, Morandini P, Ammann K (2008) Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals? Trends Biotechol 26:122–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Montpetit E, Rouillard C (2008) Culture and the democratization of risk management: the widening biotechnology gap between Canada and France. Admin Soc 39:907–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morris SH, Spillane C (2010) EU GM crop regulation: a road to resolution or a regulatory roundabout? Eur J Risk Res 4:359–369Google Scholar
  50. Myhr AI, Traavik T (2003) Sustainable development and Norwegian genetic engineering regulations: applications, impacts and challenges. J Agric Environ Ethic 16:317–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nature (2007) Directive action required. Nature 450:921Google Scholar
  52. Nature (2013) GM crops: a story in numbers. Nature 497:22–23Google Scholar
  53. Nienstedt KM, Brock TCM, van Wensum J, Montforts M, Hart A, Aagaard A, Alix A, Boesten J, Bopp SK, Brown C, Capri E, Forbes V, Köpp H, Liess M, Luttik R, Maltby L, Sousa JP, Streissl F, Hardy AR (2012) Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 415:31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nowotny H (2003) Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci Public Policy 30:151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OGTR (2013) Risk analysis framework. Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), Australia. Available from http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/content/42D3AAD51452D5ECCA2574550015E69F/$File/raffinal5_2.pdf
  56. Perry JN, ter Braak CJF, Dixon PM, Duan JJ, Hails RS, Huesken A, Lavielle A, Marvier M, Scardi M, Schmidt K, Tothmeresz B, Schaarschmidt F, van der Voet H (2009) Statistical aspects of environmental risk assessment of GM plants for effects on non-target organisms. Environ Biosafety Res 8:65–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramessar K, Capell T, Twyman RM, Quemada H, Christou P (2009) Calling the tunes on transgenic crops: the case for regulatory harmony. Mol Breed 23:99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rauschen S (2010) A case of “pseudo science”? A study claiming effects of the Cry1Ab protein on larvae of the two-spotted ladybird is reminiscent of the case of the green lacewing. Transgenic Res 19:13–16PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosafety Res 5:119–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raybould A (2010) Reducing uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for transgenic crops. More ecological research or clearer environmental risk assessment? GM Crops 1:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raybould A (2011) The bucket and the searchlight: formulating and testing risk hypotheses about the weediness and invasiveness potential of transgenic crops. Environ Biosafety Res 9:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raybould A (2013) Can science justify regulatory decisions about the cultivation of transgenic crops? Transgenic Res 21:691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Raybould A, Poppy GM (2012) Commercializing genetically modified crops under EU regulations: objectives and barriers. GM Crops Food Biotechnol Agric Food Chain 3:1–12Google Scholar
  65. Raybould A, Quemada H (2010) Bt crops and food security in developing countries: realised benefits, sustainable use and lowering barriers to adoption. Food Sec 2:247–259Google Scholar
  66. Ricroch A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M (2010) Is the German suspension of MON810 maize cultivation scientifically justified? Transgenic Res 19:1–12PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens K, De Schrijver A, Gatehouse AMR, Herman RA, Huesing JE, McLean MA, Raybould A, Shelton AM, Waggoner A (2011) Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Transgenic Res 20:1–22PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Romeis J, McLean MA, Shelton AM (2013) When bad science makes good headlines: Bt maize and regulatory bans. Nat Biotechnol 31:386–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sabalza M, Miralpeix B, Twyman RM, Capell T, Christou P (2011) EU legitimizes GM crop exclusion zones. Nat Biotechnol 29:315–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 107:235–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Sanvido O, Romeis J, Gathmann A, Gielkens M, Raybould A, Bigler F (2012) Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops: ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making. Environ Sci Policy 15:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sarewitz D (2007) Liberating science from politics. Am Sci 94:104–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Semenov AV, van Elsas JD, Glandorf DCM, Schilthuizen M, de Boer WF (2013) The use of statistical tools in field testing of putative effects of genetically modified plants on nontarget organisms. Ecol Evol 3:2739–2750PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Sinha G (2009) Up in arms. Nat Biotechnol 27:592–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stirling A (2007) Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Rep 8:309–315PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sunstein CR (2009) Going to extremes: how like minds unite and divide. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  79. Tait J (2001) More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops. J Risk Res 4:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tait J (2008) Risk governance of genetically modified crops: European and American perspectives. In: Renn O, Walker K (eds) Global risk governance: concept and practice using the IRGC framework. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 133–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Rep 10:518–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tait J, Barker G (2011) Global food security and the governance of modern biotechnologies. EMBO Rep 12:763–768PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. US EPA (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R095/002F. US Environmental Protection Agency, United States of America. Available from http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/ECOTXTBX.PDF
  84. Waltz E (2009) Battlefield. Nature 461:27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. WHO (2008) Uncertainty and data quality in exposure assessment. World Health Organisation (WHO), Switzerland. Available from http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/methods/harmonization/exposure_assessment.pdf
  86. Wickson F, Wynne B (2012a) Ethics of science for policy in the environmental governance of biotechnology: MON810 maize in Europe. Ethic Policy Environ 15:321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wickson F, Wynne B (2012b) The anglerfish deception. EMBO Rep 13:100–105PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilkinson MJ, Sweet J, Poppy GM (2003) Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock? Plant Sci 8:208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Winickoff D, Jasanoff S, Busch L, Grove-White R, Wynne B (2005) Adjudicating the GM food wars: science, risk, and democracy in world trade law. Yale J Int Law 30:81–123Google Scholar
  90. Wolt JD, Keese P, Raybould A, Fitzpatrick JW, Burachik M, Gray A, Olin SS, Schiemann J, Sears M, Wu F (2010) Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res 19:425–436PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yann Devos
    • 1
  • Olivier Sanvido
    • 2
    • 3
  • Joyce Tait
    • 4
  • Alan Raybould
    • 5
  1. 1.GMO UnitEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA)ParmaItaly
  2. 2.Agroscope Reckenholz Tänikon Research Station ARTZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Chemicals and Occupational HealthState Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO)BernSwitzerland
  4. 4.School of Social and Political Science, Innogen InstituteUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  5. 5.Jealott’s Hill International Research CentreSyngentaBracknell, BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations