Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: Precautionary Science and Conflicts of Interests

  • Anne Ingeborg Myhr
  • Terje Traavik


Risk governance of GM plants and GMfood products is presently subject to heatedscientific and public controversies. Scientistsand representatives of the biotechnologyindustry have dominated debates concerningsafety issues. The public is suspicious withregard to the motives of scientists, companies,and political institutions involved. Thedilemmas posed are nested, embracing valuequestions, scientific uncertainty, andcontextual issues. The obvious lack of data andinsufficient information concerning ecologicaleffects call for application of thePrecautionary Principle (PP). There are,however, divergent opinions among scientistsabout the relevance of putative hazards,definition of potential ``adverse effects,'' andwhether actions should be taken to preventharm. The reliance on the concept ofsubstantial equivalence in safety evaluation ofGM food is equally controversial. Consequently,value assumptions embedded in a scientificframework may be a barrier for employment ofthe PP. One of our major conclusions is thatprecautionary GMP usage requires riskassessment criteria yet undeveloped, as well asbroader and more long-term conceptions of risk,uncertainty, and ignorance. Conflicts ofinterest and public participation are otherissues that need to be taken intoconsideration. GMP governance regimes that arejustifiable from a precautionary and ethicalpoint of view must transcend traditionalscientific boundaries to include alternativescientific perspectives as well as publicinvolvement.

conflicts of interests genetically modified (GM) plants GM food the Precautionary Principle public trust scientific uncertainty substantial equivalence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ACRE: Advisory Committee of Release to the Environment, Annual Report No. 2: 1994/1995 (Department of the Environment, London, 1995).Google Scholar
  2. Adler, J. H., “More Sorry than Safe, Assessing the Precautionary Principle and the proposed international Biosafety Protocol,” Texas Int. Law Journal 35 (2000), 173–205.Google Scholar
  3. Aldhouse, P., “Inquiry Blames Missed Warnings for Scale of Britain's BSE Crisis,” Nature 408 (2000), 3–5.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, K. and C. Raffensperger, “Precautionary Science,” in C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1999), pp. 106–122.Google Scholar
  5. Beetham, P. R., P. B. Kipp, X. L. Sawycky, C. J. Arntzen, and G. D. May, “A Tool for Functional Plant Genomics Cause in vivo Gene-Specific Mutations,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 96 (1999), 8774–8778.Google Scholar
  6. Bergelson, J., C. P. Purrington, and G. Wichmann, “Promiscuity in Transgenic Plants,”Nature 395 (1998), 25.Google Scholar
  7. Buhl-Mortensen, L. and R. Toresen, “Fisheries Management in a Sea of Uncertainty: The Role and Responsibility of Scientists in Attaining a Precautionary Approach,”Int. J. Sustainable Development 4 (2001), 245–264.Google Scholar
  8. Buhl-Mortensen, L. and S. Welin, “The ethics of Doing Policy Relevant Science: The Precautionary Principle and the Significance of Non-Significant Results,” Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1998), 401–412.Google Scholar
  9. Case Documents: Herbicide Tolerant Oilseed Rape (1994-07-08) ( and notification C/UK/94/M1/1 ( Scholar
  10. CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (,2000).Google Scholar
  11. Clark, E. A. and H. Lehman, “Assessment of GM Crops in Commercial Agriculture,” J. of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(1) (2001), 3–28.Google Scholar
  12. Crawley, M. J., “Bollworms, Genes and Ecologists,” Nature 400 (1999), 501–502.Google Scholar
  13. DeAngelis, C. D., “Conflict of Interest and the Public Trust,” JAMA 284 (2000), 2237–2238.Google Scholar
  14. De Neve, M., S. De Bock, C. De Wilde, H. Van Houdt, I. Strobbe, A. Jacobs, M. Van Montagu, and A. Dipicker, “Gene Silencing Results in Instability of Antibody Production in Transgenic Plants,” Mol. Gen. Genet. 260 (1999), 582–592.Google Scholar
  15. DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions), Farm-Scale Evaluations of the Impact of the Management of GM Herbicid-Tolerant Oil-Seed Rape and Maize on the Farmland Biodiversity ( html, 1999).Google Scholar
  16. Dickson, D., “Scientists Back GM for Third World,” Nature 406 (2000), 115.Google Scholar
  17. Domingo, J. L., “Health Risks of GM Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data,” Science 288 (2000), 1748–1749.Google Scholar
  18. Editorial, “A Sound Approach to GM Debate,” Nature 412 (2001), 569.Google Scholar
  19. EEA: European Environment Agency, Late Lessons from Early Warnings. The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000 ( issue_report_ 2001_22/, 2002).Google Scholar
  20. Ellstrand, N. C., H. C. Prentice, and J. E. Hancock, “Gene Flow and Introgression from Domesticated Plants into Their Wild Relatives,” Ann. Rev. Eco. Systematic 30 (1999), 539–563.Google Scholar
  21. EU: Commission of the European Communities, Communication on the Precautionary Principle (Brussels, 2000) ( Scholar
  22. 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
  23. FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization, Biotechnology and Food Safety (FAO, Rome, 1996).Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz, Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990) pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
  26. Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz, “Science for the Post Normal Age,” Futures 25 (1993), 739–755.Google Scholar
  27. Garattini, S., “The Risk of Bias from Omitted Research,” BJM 321 (2000), 845–846.Google Scholar
  28. Gasson, M. and D. Burke, “Scientific Perspectives on Regulating the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods,” Nature Reviews 2 (2001), 217–222.Google Scholar
  29. Gebhard, M. and K. Smalla, “Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. Strain BD413 by Transgenic Sugar Beet DNA,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64 (1998), 1550–1554.Google Scholar
  30. Gibbons, M., “Science's New Social Contract with Society,” Nature 402 (suppl) (1999), c81–c84.Google Scholar
  31. Gura, T., “The Battlefields of Britain,” Nature 412 (2001), 760–763.Google Scholar
  32. Gurney, S. and J. Sass, “Public Trust Requires Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest,” Nature 413 (2001), 565.Google Scholar
  33. Hansson, S. O., “Adjusting Scientific Practices to the Precautionary Principle,” Hum. Ecol. Risk. Assess. 5 (1999), 909–921.Google Scholar
  34. Ho, M. W., A. Ryan, and J. Cummins, “Hazards of Transgenic Plants Containing the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Promoter,” Microb. Ecol. Hlth. Dis. 12 (2000), 6–11.Google Scholar
  35. Holmberg, L. and M. Baum, “Work on Your Theories!” Nature Medicine 2 (1996), 844–846.Google Scholar
  36. James, C., Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000, ISAAA Briefs No. 23 (New York, 2001) (http:// Scholar
  37. Kaiser, M., “Fish-Farming and the Precautionary Principle: Context and Values in Environmental Science for Policy,” Foundation of Science 2 (1997), 307–341.Google Scholar
  38. Kuiper, H. A, H. P. J. M. Noteborn, E. J. Kok, and G. A. Kleter, “Safety Aspects of Novel Food,” Food Research International 35 (2002), 267–270.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Lemons J., K. S. Shrader-Frechette, and C. Cranor, “The Precautionary Principle; Scientific Uncertainty and Type-I and Type-II Errors,” Foundation of Science 2 (1997), 207–236.Google Scholar
  41. Levidow L., S. Carr, and D. Wield, “Genetically Modified Crops in the European Union: Regulatory Conflicts as Precautionary Opportunities,” J. Risk Research 3 (2000), 189–208.Google Scholar
  42. Losey J. E., L. S. Rayor, and M. E. Carter, “Transgenic Pollen Harm Monarch Larvae,” Nature 399 (1999), 214.Google Scholar
  43. Mikkelsen T. R., B. Andersen, and R. B. Jørgensen, “The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread,” Nature 380 (1996), 31.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, H. I. and G. Conko, “Genetically Modified Fear and the International Regulation of Biotechnology,” in J. Morris (ed.), Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2000), pp. 84–104.Google Scholar
  45. Millstone, E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer, “Beyond Substantial Equivalence,” Nature 401 (1999), 525–526.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. Myhr, A. I. and T. Traavik, “The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO use and Release,” J. of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (2002), 73–86.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Novak, W. K. and A. G. Haslberger, “Substantial Equivalence of Antinutrients and Inherent Plant Toxins in Genetically Modified Foods,” Food and Chemical Toxicol. 38 (2000), 473–483.Google Scholar
  51. OECD, Safety Evaluation of Foods Produced by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Orinciples (OECD, Paris, 1993).Google Scholar
  52. Obrycki, J. J., J. E. Losey, O. R. Taylor, and L. C. Jesse, “Transgenic Insecticidal Corn: Beyond Insecticidal Toxicity to Ecological Complexity,” BioScience 51(5) (2001), 353–360.Google Scholar
  53. O'Riordan, T. and A. Jordan, “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Politics,” Environ. Values 4 (1995), 191–212.Google Scholar
  54. Pouteau, S., “Beyond Substantial Equivalence: Ethical Equivalence,” J. of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13 (2000), 273–291.Google Scholar
  55. Raffensperger, C. and J. Tickner, “Lessons from Wingspread,” in C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Island Press, Washington DC, 1999), pp. 349–355.Google Scholar
  56. Ravetz, J. R, “The Science of What If?” Futures 29 (1997), 533–539.Google Scholar
  57. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Un.Doc/CoNF.151/5/Rev.1 (1992).Google Scholar
  58. Rissler, J. and M. Mellon, The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996).Google Scholar
  59. Sagar, A., A. Daemmrich, and M. Ashiya, “The Tragedy of the Commoners: Biotechnology and Its Public,” Nature Biotechnology18 (2000), 2–4.Google Scholar
  60. Saxena, D. and G. Stotzky, “Insecticidal Toxin from Bacillus Thuringiensis is Released from Roots of Transgenic Bt Corn in vitro and in situ,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology 33 (2000), 35–39.Google Scholar
  61. Scott, A., A. Stirling, N. Mabey, F. Berkhout, C. Williams, C. Rose, M. Jacobs, R. Grove-White, I. Scoones, and M. Leach, “Precautionary Approach to Risk Assessment,” Nature 402 (1999), 348.Google Scholar
  62. Shelton, A. M. and M. K. Sears, “The Monarch Butterfly Controversy: Scientific Interpretations of a Phenomenon,” The Plant Journal 27(6) (2001), 483–488.Google Scholar
  63. Stanley-Horn, D. E., G. P. Dively, R. L. Hellmich, H. R. Mattila, M. K. Sears, R. Rose, L. C. Jesse, J.. E Losey, J. J. Obrychi, and L. Lewis, “Assessing the Impact of Cry1 Ab-Expressing Cornpollen on Monarch Butterfly Larvae in Field Studies,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98 (2001), 11931–11936.Google Scholar
  64. Sutherland, A. R. and W. J. Watkinson, “Policy Making within Ecological Uncertainty: Lessons from Badgers and GM Crops,” Trends in Ecololgy and Evolution 16 (2001), 261–263.Google Scholar
  65. The New Zealand Commision (, 2001).Google Scholar
  66. The Royal Society of Canada, Elements of Precaution, Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada (, 2001).Google Scholar
  67. Traavik, T., “An Orphan in Science: Environmental Risks of Genetically Engineered Vaccines,” Research report for DN. No. 1999-6 (Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim, 1999).Google Scholar
  68. Trewavas, A. and C. J. Leaver, “Conventional Crops are the Test of GM Prejudice,” Nature 401 (1999), 640.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Wolfenbarger, L. L. and P. R. Phifer, “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants,” Science 290 (2000), 2088–2093.Google Scholar
  71. Wynne, B., “Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics of GMOs,” Science as Culture 10 (2001), 445–481.Google Scholar
  72. Zangerl, A. R., D. McKenna, C. C. Wraight, M. Carroll, P. Ficarello, R. Warner, and M. R. Berenbaum, “Effects of Exposure to Event 176 Bacillus Thuringiensis Corn Pollen on Monarch and Black Swallowtail Caterpillars under Field Conditions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98 (2001), 11931–11936.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

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

Personalised recommendations