Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals

ABSTRACT

In 2013, at the request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced a new risk assessment policy: Guidance on the environmental risks of genetically modified (GM) animals (‘Guidance’). This policy specifies the issues to be addressed in future risk assessments for GM animals. EFSA is the European Commission's scientific arm, responsible for food-related risk assessment. EFSA relies heavily on independent experts and consults non-state actors. Employing expert interviews and documentary analysis, the article explores non-state actor involvement in a traditionally expert domain through a case study. Analysis of EFSA's consultation demonstrates the inability of non-state actors to influence policy. The article argues that despite international legal obligations to develop risk assessment policy, the European Commission failed to recognize the Guidance as policy. When policy masquerades as science, unjustified restrictions are placed on non-state actor involvement and value judgements are cloaked from public scrutiny.

KEY WORDS:

• European Food Safety Authority
• experts
• genetically modified animals
• non-state actors
• public consultation
• risk assessment policy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank participants at the Policy & Politics Conference, September 2014 in Bristol, Professor Erik Millstone and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on this work.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust ‘Making Science Public’ programme under Grant RP2011-SP-013.

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA AND RESEARCH MATERIALS

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the Taylor & Francis website, doi 10.1080/13501763.2015.1049196.

Notes

1 The term ‘non-state actors’ refers to policy community actors who are not in possession of decision-making authority including government departments and agencies, universities and research organizations, industry, public interest groups and individuals. The term does not include the Commission, EFSA or experts providing advice to EFSA in development of this Guidance.

2 The Guidance is not an environmental risk assessment (ERA). It instructs applicants and risk assessors on how to conduct an ERA.

3 Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed.

4 The analysis also demonstrates an underlying problem with the lack of opportunity to debate the wider issues in the governance of GM animals and the perceived bias in favour of GMOs. See Hartley and Millar (2014) for more on this problem.

5 See: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/publications.htm?scdtype=guidanceoe&n=20&scdtype=guidanceop.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sarah Hartley

Biographical note

Sarah Hartley is a research fellow on the Leverhulme Trust programme, ‘Making Science Public', at the University of Nottingham.