The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO Use and Release

  • Anne Ingeborg Myhr
  • Terje Traavik
Article

Abstract

Commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have sparked profound controversies concerning adequate approaches to risk regulation. Scientific uncertainty and ambiguity, omitted research areas, and lack of basic knowledge crucial to risk assessmentshave become apparent. The objective of this article is to discuss the policy and practical implementation of the Precautionary Principle. A major conclusion is that the void in scientific understanding concerning risks posed by secondary effects and the complexity ofcause-effect relations warrant further research. Initiatives to approach the acceptance or rejection of a number of risk-associated hypotheses is badly needed. Further, since scientific advice plays a key role in GMOregulations, scientists have a responsibility to address and communicate uncertainty to policy makers and the public. Hence, the acceptance of uncertainty is not only a scientific issue, but is related to public policy and involves an ethical dimension.

extended consent GMO Precautionary Principle omitted research scientific uncertainty secondary effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCESs

  1. Aldhous, P., “Inquiry Blames Missed Warnings for Scale of Britain's BSE Crisis,” Nature 408 (2000), 3–5.Google Scholar
  2. Bergelson, J., C. P. Purrington, and G. Wichmann, “Promiscuity in Transgenic Plants,” Nature395 (1998), 25.Google Scholar
  3. Buhl-Mortensen, L. and S. Welin, “The Ethics of Doing Policy Relevant Science: The Precautionary Principle and the Significance of Non-significant Results,” Sci Eng Ethics 4 (1998), 401–412.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, D. and T. Reichardt, “Long-term Effects of GMCrops Serves up Food for Thought,” Nature398 (1999), 652–656.Google Scholar
  5. CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Internet http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. Chévre A. M., F. Eber, A. Baranger, and M. Renard, “Gene Flow from Transgenic Crops,” Nature389 (1997), 924.Google Scholar
  7. Covello, V. T. and M. W. Merkhofer, Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks (Plenum Press, New York, 1993), pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  8. Crawley, M. J., “Bollworms, Genes and Ecologists,” Nature 400 (1999), 501–502.Google Scholar
  9. De Vries J. and W. Wackernagel, “Detection of nptII (kanamycin resistance) Genes in Genomes of Transgenic Plants by Marker-rescue Transformation,” Mol Gen Genet 257 (1998), 606–613.Google Scholar
  10. Doerfler W., R. Schubbert, H. Heller, C. Kamner, K. Hilger-Eversheim, M. Knoblauch, and R. Remus, “Integration of Foreign DNA and its Consequences in Mammalian Systems,” TIBTECH15 (1997), 297–301.Google Scholar
  11. Domingo, J. L., “Health Risks of GM Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data,” Science 288 (2000), 1748–1749.Google Scholar
  12. Ewen, S. W. and A. Pusztai, “Effects of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestine,” Lancet 354 (1999), 1353–1354.Google Scholar
  13. EU: Commision of the European Communities COM, Communication on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels 02. February, Internet http://europa.eu.int, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Foster, K. R., P. Vecchia, and M. H. Repacholi, “Science and the Precautionary Principle,” Science288 (2000), 979–981.Google Scholar
  15. Freestone, D. and E. Hey, “Origins and Development of the Precautionary Principle,” in D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law (Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 1996), pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  16. Funtowiz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz, “Science for the Post Normal Age,” Futures 25 (1993), 739–755.Google Scholar
  17. Garattini, S., “The Risk of Bias from Omitted Research,” BJM 321 (2000), 845–846.Google Scholar
  18. Gaskell, G., M. W. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. C. Allum, “Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S,” Science 285 (1999), 384–387.Google Scholar
  19. Holm, S. and J. Harris, “Precautionary Principle Stifles Discovery,” Nature 400 (1999), 398.Google Scholar
  20. Inose T. and K. Murata, “Enhanced Accumulation of Toxic Compound in Yeast Cells Having High Glycolytic Activity: A Case Study on the Safety of Genetically Engineered Yeast,” Int J Food Sci Technol 30 (1995), 141–146.Google Scholar
  21. James, C., Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000, ISAAA Briefs No. 21 (lIthaca, New York, Internet http://www.isaaa.org, 2000).Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, B. and A. Hope, “GM Crops and Equivocal Environmental Benefits,” Nature Biotech 18 (2000), 242.Google Scholar
  23. Lappé M. A., E. B. Bailey, C. Childress, and K. D. R. Setchell, “Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide tolerant soybeans,” J Med Food 1 (1999), 241–245.Google Scholar
  24. Lemons J., K. S. Shrader-Frechette, and C Cranor, “The Precautionary Principle; Scientific Uncertainty and Type I and type II Errors,” Foundations of Science 2 (1997), 207–236.Google Scholar
  25. Levidow L., S. Carr, and D. Wield, “Genetically Modified Crops in the European Union: Regulatory Conflicts as Precautionary Opportunities,” J Risk Res 3 (2000), 189–208.Google Scholar
  26. Losey J. E., L. S. Rayor, and M. E. Carter, “Transgenic Pollen Harm Monarch Larvae,” Nature399 (1999), 214.Google Scholar
  27. Mikkelsen T. R., B. Andersen, and R. B. Jørgensen, “The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread,” Nature380 (1996), 31.Google Scholar
  28. Millstone E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer, “Beyond 'substantial Equivalence',” Nature 401 (1999), 525–526.Google Scholar
  29. Mor T. S., M. A. Gomez-Lim, and K. E. Palmer, “Perspective: Edible Vaccines - a Concept Coming of Age,” Trends Microbiol 6 (1998), 449–453.Google Scholar
  30. Myhr A. I. and T. Traavik, “The Precautionary Principle Applied to Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs),” Microb Ecol Hlth Dis 11 (1999), 65–74.Google Scholar
  31. NENT (The National Committees for Research Ethics), Fast Salmon and Technoburger, Report from the Consensus Conference on Genetically Modified Food (clOslo, Forskningsparken, Norway, 1996).Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen K. M., F. Gebbard, K. Smalla, K. M. Bones, and J. D. van Elsas, “Horizontal Gene Transfer from Transgenic Plants to Terrestrial Bacteria - a Rare Event?” FEMS Microbial Rev 22 (1998), 79–103.Google Scholar
  33. Nielsen, T. H., “Behind the Color Code of ‘No',” Nature Biotech 15 (1997), 320–321.Google Scholar
  34. Novak, W. K. and A. G. Haslberger, “Substantial Equivalence of Antinutrients and Inherent Plant Toxins in Genetically Modified Novel Foods,” Food Chem Tox 38 (2000), 473–483.Google Scholar
  35. Raffensperger C., J. Tickner, T. Schettler, and A. Jordan, “...and Can Mean Saying ‘Yes’ to Innovation,” Nature 401 (1999), 207–208.Google Scholar
  36. RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International), Biotech's Generation 3. RAFI (Communiqué 67/nov/dec, Winnipeg, Canada, Internet http://www.rafi.org, 2000).Google Scholar
  37. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Un.Doc/CoNF.151/5/Rev.1 (1992).Google Scholar
  38. Rotblat, Sir J., “A hippocratic Oath to Scientists,” Science 286 (1999), 1475.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, J., “Nice Work - but Is It Science?” Nature 408 (2000), 293.Google Scholar
  40. Sternheimer, J., “How Ethical Principles Can Aid Research,” Nature 402 (1999), 576.Google Scholar
  41. Thompson, P. B., Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective, Techniques and perspectives in Food Biotechnology 1 (Chapmann & Hall, London, 1997), pp. 216–240.Google Scholar
  42. Traavik, T., An Orphan in Science: Environmental risks of Genetically Engineered Vaccines, Research report for DN. No. 1999-6 (Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim, Norway, 1999).Google Scholar
  43. Von Schomberg, R., An Appraisal of the Working in Practice of Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (Luxembourg: STOA, European Parliament. PE 166.953/Final/Rev, 1998).Google Scholar
  44. Watkinson, A. R., R. P. Freckleton, R. A. Robinson, and W. J. Sutherland, “Predictions of Biodiversity Response to Genetically Modified Herbicide-tolerant Crops,” Science 289 (2000), 1554–1556.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, N., “Can Regulations Requiring Labeling of Genetically Modified FoodsWork?” Science281 (1998), 269.Google Scholar
  46. Wolfenbarger, L. L. and P. R. Phifer, “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants,” Science 290 (2000), 2088–2093.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Ingeborg Myhr
    • 1
  • Terje Traavik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Microbiology and VirologyUniversity of Tromsø and Norwegian, Institute of Gene EcologyTromsøNorway E-mail

Personalised recommendations