The Market for Credible Information in Biotechnology

  • Edna F. Einsiedel


In the past, public reactions to products have generally taken place in the post-marketing phase of development. Increasingly, however, products of controversial technologies such as biotechnology applications have undergone increasing public scrutiny in earlier stages of the development cycle. Clearly, the market for technological development includes the pool of information available to the public and the institutional arrangements in place for access to and dissemination of such information. Such arrangements have been identified as integral to creating markets for innovation. This paper addresses the following questions: What is the nature of the market for credible information for biotechnology products? What social or institutional arrangements and practices attempt to promote greater credibility of information for biotechnology products? Experiences in various European countries are examined as a context for discussing the current policy attempts in Canada to address this challenge.


Risk Perception Public Participation Consensus Conference Industry Association Public Consultation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1993). Workshop on regulating agricultural products of biotechnology. November. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1994). Technical workshop on the labelling of novel foods derived through genetic engineering. Proceedings. November. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (1989). Public consultation and participation. Calgary, Alberta: AEUB.Google Scholar
  4. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (1993). Oil and Gas Developments, Eastern Slopes — Information Letter. Calgary, Alberta: AEUB.Google Scholar
  5. American Dietetic Association (1993). Press Release, November 8, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  6. Biotechnology and the European Public Concerted Action Group (1997). Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature, 387, 845–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bord, R., & O’Connor, R. (1990). Risk communication, knowledge and attitudes: Explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk Analysis, 10, 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradley, L. (1997). Personal comunication. January 23.Google Scholar
  9. Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1995). Reducing emissions. Ottawa: CCPA.Google Scholar
  10. Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996a). Does Responsible Care™ pay? Ottawa: CCPA.Google Scholar
  11. Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996b). Responsible Care™ Way of Life: expectations of member and partner companies. Ottawa: CCPA.Google Scholar
  12. Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996c). Are we there yet? Ottawa: CCPA.Google Scholar
  13. Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association (1996d). Responsible Care™: A total commitment. Ottawa: CCPA.Google Scholar
  14. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (1995). Citizen’s guide to biotechnology. Toronto: CIELAP.Google Scholar
  15. Consumers Association of Canada (1995). Background paper on food biotechnology in Canada. Prepared for the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, April 29.Google Scholar
  16. Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M.T. (1987). Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  17. Covello, V. T., Sandman, P., & Slovic, P. (1991), Guidelines for communicating information about chemical risks effectively and responsibly. In: E. Mayo & R. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management, pp. 95–118. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Creative Research International (1996). Environmental applications of biotechnology: Focus groups. Report to Environment Canada. Ottawa: Environment Canada.Google Scholar
  19. Decima Research (1993). Report to the Canadian Institute of Biotechnology on public attitudes toward genetic engineering. Ottawa: CIB.Google Scholar
  20. Einsiedel, E. F. (1997). Canadian attitudes to and perceptions of biotechnology. Calgary: University of Calgary. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  21. Ekos Research Associates Inc. (1996). Focus groups on agri-food: Applications of biotechnology. Report to Consumer Affairs, Industry Canada. Ottawa: Industry Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Féderation nationale des associations de consummateurs du Quebec (1996). To protect our quality of life and that of our children: Recommendations for the development and marketing of biotechnology. Ottawa: Office of Consumer Affairs.Google Scholar
  23. Grocery Manufacturers of America (1992). Press Release, July 18, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. Grundahl, J. (1995). The Danish consensus conference model. In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science, pp. 31–40. London: Science Museum and EC DG XII.Google Scholar
  25. House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (1997). Privacy rights and new technologies consultation package. Ottawa: Library of Parliament Research Branch.Google Scholar
  26. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. N. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology (1996a). Market introduction and labelling of foods produced with the aid of modern biotechnology. Amsterdam: Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  28. Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology (1996b). Checklist Novel Foods I. Amsterdam: Informal Consultation Group on Biotechnology.Google Scholar
  29. Jasanoff, S. (1995). Product, process, and programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In: M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology, and biotechnology, pp. 185–210. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jelsøe, E. (1997). Roskilde University. Personal communication. March 30.Google Scholar
  31. Joss, S., & Durant, J. (1995). Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum and EC DG XII.Google Scholar
  32. Kluver, L. (1995). Consensus conferences at the Danish Board of Technology. In: S. Joss & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, pp. 41–49. London: Science Museum and EC DG XII.Google Scholar
  33. Krimsky, S., & Wrubel, R. (1996). Agricultural biotechnology and the environment-Science, policy and social issues. Urbana, IL.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  34. Laband, D. (1991). Search vs. experience goods. Economic Inquiry, 34, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marlier, S. (1997). Alberta Energy Utilities Board. Personal communications. January 24.Google Scholar
  36. Moreno, J. D. (1995). Deciding together: Bioethics and moral consensus. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mullan, F., & Jacoby, I. (1985). The town meeting for technology: The maturation of consensus conferences. Journal of the American Medical Association, 254, 1068–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Institute of Nutrition (1996). Annual report. Ottawa: NIN.Google Scholar
  39. Optima Consultants (1994). Understanding the consumer interest in the new biotechnology. Ottawa: Office of Consumer Affairs.Google Scholar
  40. Pritzker, D., & Dalton, D. (1990). Negotiated rulemaking sourcebook. Washington, DC: Administrative Conference of the United States.Google Scholar
  41. Renn, O., & Levine, L. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communications. In: R. Kasperson & P. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risks to the public, pp. 175–218. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (1995). Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In A. Rip, T. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, pp. 54–80. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  43. Roobeek, A. J. M. (1995). Biotechnology: A core technology in a new techno-economic paradigm. In: M. Fransman, G. Junne, & A. Roobeek (Eds.), The biotechnology revolution?, pp. 86–102. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Science Council (1982). Value-laden scientific disputes and policy. Ottawa: Supply and Services.Google Scholar
  45. Teubal, M., Yinnon, T., & Zuscovitch, E. (1991). Networks and market creation. Research Policy, 20, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toft, J. (1996). Denmark: Seeking a broad-based consensus on gene technology. Science and Public Policy, 23(3), 171–174.Google Scholar
  47. Turner, J., & Wynne, B. (1992). Risk communication: A literature review and some implications for biotechnology. In: J. Durant (Ed.), Biotechnology in public, pp. 109–141. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  48. Van den Daele, W. (1995). Strategies of dealing with with the risks of genetic engineering: Lessons from a participatory technology assessment in Germany. In: J. Landsmann & R. Casper (Eds.), Key biosafety aspects of genetically modified organisms, pp. 121–140. Berlin: Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. Von Schomberg, R. (1996). Netherlands: Deliberating biotechnology regulation. Science and Public Policy, 23(3), 158–163.Google Scholar
  50. Wohl, J. (1998). Consumer decision-making and risk perception regarding foods produced with biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21. Also included in: B. M. Knoppers & A. D. Mathios (Eds.), Biotechnology and the consumer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edna F. Einsiedel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations