Advertisement

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 903–924 | Cite as

Ethics of Dissent: A Plea for Restraint in the Scientific Debate About the Safety of GM Crops

  • Ruth Mampuys
  • Frans W. A. Brom
Articles

Abstract

Results of studies that cast doubt on the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops have been published since the first GM crop approval for commercial release. These ‘alarming studies’ challenge the dominant view about the adequacy of current risk assessment practice for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Subsequent debates follow a similar and recurring pattern, in which those involved cannot agree on the significance of the results and the attached consequences. The standard response from the government—a reassessment by scientific advisory bodies—seems insufficient to bring the debate to a satisfactory closure. The recurrence of the same debate every time an alarming study is published shows that science alone cannot solve the problem. We believe that further analysis is needed to investigate if and how we can prevent this repetitive cycle that creates frustration amongst all stakeholders. In this paper, we analyse the dynamics behind discussions which occur following alarming studies. We will use a selection of representative alarming GMO case studies to underpin our claim that it is likely that there will be a permanent difference in view of opinion that cannot be solved with more data or new facts. The current strategy of more research is a pitfall that is unlikely to solve this issue. Instead, the focus of the GM crop discussion should shift towards managing permanent different viewpoints and providing a platform for a broader conversation on agriculture and food production.

Keywords

GMO Biosafety Alarming study Controversial technology Argument analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is adapted from a report of the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM). The opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of COGEM. We would like to acknowledge all the experts who were involved in the realization of this report. Furthermore, we thank the participants of the workshop on food bioethics and food safety governance at China Agricultural University for their fruitful comments and questions.

*This paper is one in a set of two articles that resulted from the abovementioned COGEM report. Therefore, the introductory section partially overlaps.

Supplementary material

10806_2015_9564_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 23 kb)

References

  1. Arjo, G., Portero, M., Pinol, C., Vinas, J., Matias-Guiu, X., Capell, T., et al. (2013). Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: An in depth analysis of the Seralini et al study claiming that Roundup Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup cause cancer in rats. Transgenic Research, 22(2), 255–267. doi: 10.1007/s11248-013-9692-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2004). Snowball Sampling. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. BAC. (2012). Advice of the Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council on the Article by Séralini et al., 2012 on Toxicity of GM Maize NK603. Brussels: Belgian Biosafety Advisory Council.Google Scholar
  4. Bardocz, S., Clark, A., Ewen, S. W., Hansen, M., Heinenmann, J., Latham, J., et al. (2012). Seralini and Science: an Open Letter. Correspondence (Comment by user ‘Richard Lasker’ on October 14, 2012 at 5:34 pm): Independent Science News.Google Scholar
  5. Batie, S. S., & Schweikhardt, D. B. (2009). Societal concerns as wicked problems: The case of trade liberalization. Proceedings of an OECD workshop. In Policy responses to societal concerns in food and agriculture, Paris, France, 23 November 2009. Google Scholar
  6. Berg, P. (2008). Meetings that changed the world: Asilomar 1975: DNA modification secured. [Essay]. Nature, 455, 290–291. doi: 10.1038/455290a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blankesteijn, M., Munnichs, G., & van Drooge, L. (2014). Contested science—public controversies about science and policy (p. 44). The Hague: Rathenau Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? [News]. Science, 342(6154), 60–65. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bovenkerk, B. (2012). The biotechnology debate: Democracy in the face of intractable disagreement. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brom, F. W. A., Chaturvedi, S., Ladikas, M., & Zhang, W. (2015). Institutionalizing ethical debates in science, technology and innovation policy: A comparison of Europe, India and China. In M. Ladikas, S. Chaturvedi, Y. Zao, & D. Stemerding (Eds.), Science and technology governance and ethics. Cham: Springer Open.Google Scholar
  11. Carman, J. A., Vlieger, H. R., Versteeg, L. J., Sneller, V. E., Robinson, G. W., Clinch-Jones, C. A., et al. (2013). A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 38–54.Google Scholar
  12. CBSNews. (2012). Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-says-genetically-modified-corn-causes-tumors-but-other-scientists-skeptical-about-research/.
  13. COGEM. (2005). The farm scale evaluations evaluated. Bilthoven: Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification.Google Scholar
  14. COGEM. (2013). Where there is smoke, is there fire? responding to the results of alarming studies on the safety of GMOs. Bilthoven: Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification.Google Scholar
  15. CRIIGEN. (2013). Complaints of defamation filed against critics, Raw data released to a notary. CRIIGEN.Google Scholar
  16. EFSA. (2010). Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. [Guidance of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel]. EFSA Journal, 8(11), 1879–1990. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879.Google Scholar
  17. EFSA. (2012a). EFSA provides Séralini et al with data on GM maize NK603. Parma: European Food Safety Authority.Google Scholar
  18. EFSA. (2012b). EFSA to issue statement on potential glyphosate toxicity as used in herbicides and GM maize NK603. Parma: European Food Safety Authority.Google Scholar
  19. EFSA. (2012c). Final review of the Séralini et al. (2012a) publication on a 2-year rodent feeding study with glyphosate formulations and GM Maize NK603 as Published Online on 19 September 2012 in food and chemical toxicology. [Statement of EFSA]. EFSA Journal, 10(11), 2986–2996. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2986.Google Scholar
  20. Engdahl, F. W. (2012). Cancer of corruption, seeds of destruction: The monsanto GMO whitewash (Vol. 2015). Website: Global Research.Google Scholar
  21. Entine, J. (2012). Does the Seralini Corn Study Fiasco mark a turning point in the debate over GM food? (Comment by user ‘John Bying’ on November 14, 2012 at 8:48 am). Website: Forbes Magazine.Google Scholar
  22. Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Conflicts of interest and commitment in academic science in the United States. Minerva, 34(3), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ewen, S. W., & Pusztai, A. (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet, 354(9187), 1353–1354. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)05860-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finkel, E. (2012, 9 October). GM corn and cancer: The Séralini affair. Cosmos Magazine.Google Scholar
  25. FSANZ. (2013). Detailed comment on Carman et al (2013): Study design and conduct. Website. Food Standards Australia New Zealand.Google Scholar
  26. GMOSeralini. (2012). Frequently asked questions. Why this study now. http://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/. Accessed April 7, 2015.
  27. GMOSeralini. (2013). Ten things you need to know about the Séralini study. http://www.gmoseralini.org/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-seralini-study/. Accessed April 7, 2015.
  28. GMOSeralini. (2014). Republication of the Séralini study: Science speaks for itself. http://www.gmoseralini.org/republication-seralini-study-science-speaks/. Accessed April 7, 2015.
  29. Hilbeck, A., Binimelis, R., Defarge, N., Steinbrecher, R., Székács, A., Wickson, F., et al. (2015). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(4), 1–6. doi: 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.Google Scholar
  30. Hisschemöller, M. (1993). De democratie van problemen: de relatie tussen de inhoud van beleidsproblemen en methoden van politieke besluitvorming (The democracy of problems: Exploring the relationship between policy content and method of political decision making). PhD dissertation., VU, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Hisschemöller, M., & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge and Policy, 8(4), 40–60. doi: 10.1007/BF02832229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huber, D. (2011). Roundup may be causing animal miscarriages and infertility. (Personal letter to US Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack ed.).Google Scholar
  33. Jennings, C. G. (2006). What you can’t measure, you can’t manage: The Need for quantitative indicators in peer review. Nature, Peer Review: Debate (Quality and Value: The true purpose of Peer Review), doi: 10.1038/nature05032.
  34. Mampuys, R., & Brom, F. W. A. (2015). Governance strategies for responding to alarming studies on the safety of GM crops. Journal of Responsible Innovation,. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2015.1057797.Google Scholar
  35. Marris, C. (2001). Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports, 2(7), 545–548. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McHughen, A. (2013). Who’s afraid of the big bad GMO. C2C Journal, 7(1), 13–17.Google Scholar
  37. Meijer, A. J., & Brom, F. W. A. (2009). Biotechnology and social learning: An empirical analysis of the Dutch animal biotechnology act. Technology in Society, 31(1), 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nature. (2006). Despite enthusiasm for the concept, open peer review was not widely popular, either among authors or by scientists invited to comment. Nature (Overview: Nature’s peer review trial), doi: 10.1038/nature05535.
  39. Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2014). An Overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77–88. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. NVWA. (2012). Teleconference with EFSA and Member States on Séralini et al. study (2012) (personal notes). The Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority.Google Scholar
  41. Oreskes, N. (2004). Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 369–383. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. RetractionWatch. (2014). Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/24/retracted-seralini-gmo-rat-study-republished/. Accessed April 3, 2015.
  43. Reuters. (2012). Science journal urged to retract Monsanto GM study [News 30 November 2012]. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-science-gm-journal-idUKBRE8AT10920121130.
  44. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Elsevier Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Robinson, C. (2013). Don’t look, don’t find: health hazards of genetically modified food. Journal of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, 20, 17–24.Google Scholar
  46. Rosi-Marshall, E. J., Tank, J. L., Royer, T. V., Whiles, M. R., Evans-White, M., Chambers, C., et al. (2007). Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A, 104(41), 16204–16208. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707177104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385–403. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Séralini, G. E., Claira, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Nicolas Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a roundup herbicide and a roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 4221–4231. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Séralini, G. E., Mesnage, R., Defarge, N., Gress, S., Hennequin, D., & Clair, E. (2013). Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide. [Reply to letters to the editor]. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 53, 476–483. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slob, M. (2006). Interview with Maarten Haier. In Zeker weten: in gesprek met politici, bestuurders en wetenschappers over omgaan met onzekerheid (Being certain: Conversations with politicians, board members and scientists about handeling uncertainty). The Hague: Rathenau Institute.Google Scholar
  51. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk (risk, society, and policy series). Michigan: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Swierstra, T., & Te Molder, H. F. M. (2012). Risk and soft impacts. In P. Sandin & M. Peterson (Eds.), HR Roeser S (pp. 1050–1066). Berlin: Handbook of Risk Theory Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2009). Symposium of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of political philosophy, 17(2), 202–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A. R. P. J., Breeman, G. E., & Stiller, S. J. (2013). Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Administration & Society,. doi: 10.1177/0095399712469195.Google Scholar
  55. The Economist. (2013). Trouble at the lab. Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not. Blog. The Economist. Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, P. B. (1997). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective (Techniques and perspectives in food biotechnology 1). London: IFIS Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Van der Linden, S. (2013, 30 April). Moon landing faked!!!—Why people believe in conspiracy theories. Scientific American.Google Scholar
  58. Vidal, J. (2012a). Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators. Environment Blog (pp. Comment by user ‘Shoe’ on September 28, 2012 at 7:53 pm): The Guardian.Google Scholar
  59. Vidal, J. (2012b). Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators. Environment Blog (Comment by user ‘SouT’ on September 28, 2012 at 7:30 pm). The Guadian.Google Scholar
  60. Vidal, J. (2012c). Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators Environment blog (Comment by user ‘dusha100’ on September 28, 2012 at 7:32 pm). The Guardian.Google Scholar
  61. Vidal, J. (2012d). Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators. Environment blog. The Guardian. Google Scholar
  62. Warner, M. (2002). Publics and Counterpublics (abbreviated version). Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88(4), 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Worstall, T. (2012). Monsanto’s gm corn and cancer in rats: real scientists deeply unimpressed. politics not science perhaps? Tech blog (pp. comment by user ‘Memsomerville’ on September 20, 2012 at 9:35 pm): Forbes Magazine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Commission On Genetic ModificationBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Ethics Institute, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations