Risk Governance of Genetically Modified Crops – European and American Perspectives
Genetically Modified (GM) crops occupy a unique place in the evolution of risk governance approaches to dealing with modern, path-breaking technologies. They were the first such technology to be regulated on a precautionary basis, in a generic sense, from the earliest stages of a technology development process that began in the 1980s and is still evolving.
Today, distinctively different risk governance processes are in place in the European Union (EU) and the USA and the roots of these differences can also be traced back to the 1980s. The European regulatory process is more complex and demanding than that for any other technology; as a result, few GM crops are grown in or imported into Europe. And yet, although GM crops are grown on millions of hectares in the rest of the world, and GM foods are consumed on a daily basis by millions of people, under much less demanding regulatory regimes, there is so far no evidence of environmental or health risks associated with approved products based on this technology, and considerable evidence of their benefits.
KeywordsEuropean Union Stakeholder Engagement Risk Governance Precautionary Approach Antibiotic Resistance Marker
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. (eds.), 2002, Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Chataway, J. and Tait, J., 2000, Policy Influences on Technology for Agriculture: Chemicals, Biotechnology and Seeds — Novartis Agribusiness Monogaph, Policy Influences on Technology for Agriculture (PITA): Report to the European Commission Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme (TSER), Project No. SOE1/CT97/1068. Available at: http://www.technology.open.ac.uk/cts/pita/ and http://www.supra.ed.ac.uk/NewWeb/Reports.htm
- Council for Biotechnology Information, 2001, Bt Corn and the Monarch Butterfly, March 4.Google Scholar
- Ewen, S.W.B. and Pusztai, A., 1999, Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine, The Lancet 354, October 16, 1353– 1354.Google Scholar
- James, C., 2002, Global Review of Commercialised Transgenic Crops Featuring Bt Cotton, ISAAA Brief No. 26, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, USA.Google Scholar
- Kornberg, H., 1988, Opening remarks, in: M. Sussman, C.H. Collins, F.A. Skinner and D.E. Stewart-Tull (eds.), The Release of Genetically Engineered Micro-Organisms, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
- Losey, J.E., Raynor, L.S. and Carter, M.E., 1999, Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae, Nature Magazine, May 20.Google Scholar
- Lyall, C. and Tait, J., 2005, New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, Hampshire.Google Scholar
- Martin, S. and Tait, J., 1992, Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to biotechnology, in: J. Durrant (ed.), Biotechnology in Public: A Review of Recent Research, Science Museum for the European Federation of Biotechnology, pp. 28–41.Google Scholar
- OECD, 1993, Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
- Oliva, M.J., Baumuller, H. and Mohan, S., 2006, Guide to Trade, Biotechnology and Sustainability, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), p. 32.Google Scholar
- Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G., 2000, Governance, Politics and the State, Macmillan, Basingstoke.Google Scholar
- RCEP, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1989, Thirteenth Report: The Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms to the Environment, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
- Spinardi, G. and Williams, R., 2005, The governance challenges of breakthrough science and technology, in: C. Lyall and J. Tait (eds.), New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, Hampshire, pp. 45–66.Google Scholar
- Tait, J., 1993, Written evidence on behalf of ESRC to Report of House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on Regulation of the United Kingdom Biotechnology Industry and Global Competitiveness, 7th Report, Session 1992/93, HMSO, London, HL Paper 80-I, pp. 187–196.Google Scholar
- Tait, J., 2004, Science and Bias, Paper presented at the BA Festival of Science, Exeter, 6 September, 2004 (www.innogen.ac.uk).
- Tait, J. and Bruce, A., 2004, Global change and transboundary risks, in: T. McDaniels and M. Small (eds.), Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterisation of the Field, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 367–419. (Commissioned by Society for Risk Analysis for the International Symposium on Risk and Governance, Warrenton, VA, USA, June 2000.)Google Scholar
- Tait, J. and Levidow, L., 1992, Proactive and reactive approaches to risk regulation: The case of biotechnology, Futures, April, 219–231.Google Scholar
- Von Homeyer, I., 2002, Deliberate Release Directive: Precautionary Interactions, Project Deliverable No. D25, Final Draft, December 2002.Google Scholar
- Willis, R. and Wilsdon, J., 2004, See-Through Science — Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, Demos, London, 71 pp.Google Scholar