Governance strategies for responding to alarming studies on the safety of GM crops

Abstract

Alarming studies about the safety of genetically modified organisms have been appearing since the first genetically modified (GM) crops were authorised for market release. The debates about these studies have a recurring pattern with similar players, arguments and strategies. More importantly, they are open-ended because those involved cannot agree on the significance and value of these studies or the consequences that should be attached to them. The roots of these disagreements lie deeper and connect to different views on science, society, nature and food production. Usually, governments respond in a procedural manner by referring the study to their scientific advisory bodies. Thus far, they conclude that there is no reason to revoke or postpone GM crops authorisations. However, the debate continues with undiminished vigour. The current response strategies to alarming studies seem to actually worsen the status quo in the GM debate because the underlying disagreements are not addressed. Starting from the current governance structure, we investigate how European governments responded to alarming studies in the past and look into the consequences of these strategies on the course of the debate in order to identify lessons and pointers for the future.

Keywords:

• GMO
• biosafety
• alarming study
• technology
• governance

Acknowledgements

This article is based on 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 of COGEM who were involved in the realisation of this report. Additionally, we are grateful to Annick de Vries (Rathenau Institute) and Lonneke Poort (Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam) for their comments on draft versions of this article. Finally, we thank the participants of the workshop on food bioethics and food safety governance (2014) at China Agricultural University for their fruitful comments and questions.

Notes on Contributors

Ruth Mampuys is coordinator of the subcommittee on Ethics and Societal Aspects at the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM).

Frans W.A. Brom is Head of Technology Assessment (Rathenau Instituut) and Professor Ethics of Technology Assessment (Utrecht University). Technology assessment and trust in pluralistic democratic societies are his research interests.

Notes

1. Regulation (EC) 1830/2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC.

2. When referring to politics in this paper, we address both the socio-political debate in the public realm on the impact of GM-technology as well as the regulatory-political debate related to the governance of GM-technology. Based on the description of Jeremy Waldron (‘that the felt need among members of a certain group for a common framework or decision or course of action on some matter, even in the face of disagreement about what that framework, or decision or course of action should be, are the circumstances of politics’ (Waldron 1999) and Chantal Mouffe (‘to envisage politics as a form of ‘agonistic pluralism’ in order to stress that in modern democratic politics, the crucial problem is how to transform antagonism into agnonism’ (Mouffe 2000), we are of the opinion that the ‘regulatory-political debate’ cannot be untangled from the ‘public socio-political debate’ that takes place outside of the regulatory framework. Wherever we refer to one of those in particular, this will be made explicit in the text.

3. A systematic overview of the arguments used in the debate can be found in a report of the Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification: COGEM report CGM/131031-01.

4. www.grace-fp7.eu/en/home.

5. http://www.grace-fp7.eu/en/content/open-scientific-forum-public-debate-90-day-feeding-study-mon810-maize.

6. Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.