Food Ethics pp 87-99 | Cite as

Precautionary Approaches to Genetically Modified Organisms and the Need for Biosafety Research

  • Anne Ingeborg Myhr


Many interpretations of the precautionary principle do not provide a basis for adequate decision-making in regard to ecological and ethical questions. The article disagrees with the opinion that the precautionary principle is not scientific and gives reasons for an enlargement of scientific methods. The author agitates for an argumentative use of the concept, which has sustainable acting as its fundament.


Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Precautionary Principle Genetically Modify Crop Scientific Uncertainty Precautionary Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bøhn T., Primicerio R, Hesssen DO, Traavik T (2008) Reduced fitness of Daphnia magna fed a Bt-transgenic maize variety. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 55:584–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CBD. (1992) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (
  3. European Council Directive 2001/18/EC (
  4. Doerfler W, et al. (2001) Foreign DNA integration – Perturbations of the genome–oncogenesis. Ann NY Acad Sci 945:276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz J R (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gene Technology Act (1993) The Act relating to the production and use of genetically modified organism. Act no. 38 of 2 April 1993, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Vaz SG (2001) The precautionary principle in the 20th century. Late lessons from early warnings. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London ( Scholar
  8. Haslberger AG (2006) Need for an “integrated safety assessment” of GMOs, linking food safety and environmental considerations. J Agric Food Chem 54:3173–3180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hilbeck A, Schmidt JEU (2006) Another view on Bt proteins – How specific are they and what else might they do? Biopestic Int 2:1–50Google Scholar
  10. Karlsson M (2006) The precautionary principle, Swedish chemicals policy and sustainable development. J Risk Res 9:337–360Google Scholar
  11. Krayer von Krauss M, Casman E, Small M (2004) Elicitation of expert judgments of uncertainty in the risk assessment of herbicide tolerant oilseed crops. J Risk Anal 24:1515–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kriebel D, et al. (2001) The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ Health Perspect 109:871–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kvakkestad V, Gillund F, Kjølberg KA (2007) Scientists’ perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environ Val 16:79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Latham JR, Wilson AK, Steinbrecher RA (2006) The mutational consequences of plant transformation. J Biomed Biotechnol 6:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lemons J, Shrader-Frechette KS, Cranor C (1997) The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and type I and type II errors. Found Sci 2:207–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lövei G L, Arpaia S (2005) The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: A critical review of laboratory studies. Entomol Exp Appl 114:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer S, Stirling A (2004) GM crops: Good or bad? EMBO Rep 5:1021–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Melo-Martin I, Meghani Z (2008) Beyond risk. EMBO Rep 9:302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer G, Folker AP, Jørgensen RB, Krayer von Krauss M, Sandø P, Tveit G (2005) The factualization of uncertainty: Risk, politics, and genetically modified crops – A case of rape. Agric Hum Val 22:235–242Google Scholar
  20. Myhr AI (2005) Stretched peer-review of unexpected results (GMOs). Water Sci Technol 52:99–106Google Scholar
  21. Myhr AI, Traavik T (2003) Genetically modified crops: Precautionary science and conflicts of interests. J Agric Environ Ethics 16:227–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Myhr AI, Traavik T (2007) Poxvirus-vectored vaccines call for application of the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 10:503–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raffensperger C, Tickner J (eds) (1999) Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosi-Marshall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-White M, Chambers C, Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J, Stephen ML (2007) Toxins in transgenic crops byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. PNAS 104:16204–16208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sagar A, Daemmrich A, Ashiya M (2000) The tragedy of the commoners: Biotechnology and its public. Nat Biotechnol 18:2–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sandin P (2004) The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environ Val 13:461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stirling A (2007) Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Rep 8:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walker WE, et al. (2003) Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model based decision support. J Integr Assess 4:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilsdon J et al. (2005) The public value of science; or Howe to ensure that science really matters.
  31. Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of engineered plants. Science 290:2088–2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environ Change 2:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wynne B, Felt U (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. European Communities: Directorate-General for Research Science, Economy and SocietyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Genøk – Centre for BiosafetyTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations