Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux États-Unis

Abstract

How can one explain that the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food and agriculture poses a problem in France, where they are hardly used, yet seems to be taken for granted in the US, where their use is widespread ? Many observers see this as a sign that American consumers have accepted transgenic foods, due to a different attitude to risks, food and nature. The present article rejects that explanation. It presents a comparative analysis of the trajectory of GMOs as a public problem in France and the US, showing that very similar arguments were put forward by opponents to GMOs on both sides of the Atlantic, and that conflicts between opponents and defenders have focussed on the same issues : (i) food labeling ; (ii) the link between the choice of a technique (GMOs) and that of an economic system (intensive agriculture, capitalism) ; and (iii) the appropriate framework for evaluating risks. But whereas in France (and more generally in Europe), opponents' arguments crystallized during specific key controversies, and contributed towards the definition of the cognitive and normative dimensions of GMOs as a public problem, this did not occur in the US. Three factors seem to explain this difference : (i) very different regulatory choices made in the late 1980s (based on processes in Europe and on products in the US) ; (ii) the fact that the usefulness of transgenic plants is perceived negatively in France whereas their association with the intensive export agriculture project is perceived positively in the US ; and (iii) the growing influence of a broader, "constructive" framework for risk analysis in Europe, whereas in the US regulatory authorities continue to base their legitimacy on the ideology of "sound science".Résumé -Comment expliquer que l'utilisation des organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) dans l'agriculture et l'alimentation pose problème en France où ils ne sont pratiquement pas utilisés et semble aller de soi aux États-Unis, où ils le sont à grande échelle ? Selon certains, les consommateurs américains ont accepté les aliments transgéniques, du fait d'une différence d'attitude à l'égard des risques, de l'alimentation et de la nature. Rejetant cette explication, cet article présente une analyse comparée de la trajectoire des OGM comme problème public en France et aux États-Unis. Il démontre que les arguments très similaires sont mis en avant par les opposants et protagonistes se focalisent sur les mêmes zones de conflits. Mais alors qu'en France (et plus largement en Europe), les arguments des opposants « cristallisent » au cours d'épreuves spécifiques et contribuent à la définition des dimensions cognitives et normatives des OGM comme problème public, cette « cristallisation » n'a pas lieu aux États-Unis. Trois facteurs semblent expliquer cette différence : (i) les choix réglementaires très différents réalisés en 1990 ; (ii) le fait que l'utilité des plantes transgéniques est mal perçue en France alors que leur assimilation avec le projet d'une agriculture intensive et exportatrice est pe...

Risk and Public Problems

“…They also identify a series of tests (re ´gimes d'e ´preuve) through which the risk may transit: watch (vigilance), alert, controversy, polemic, trial, crisis and normalization. In their study, Joly and Marris (2003) find that GMOs went through these phases, not so much in an orderly fashion, but rather as moments during which the definition, nature, features and so on of the risk were debated, transformed and crystallized. These phases took place in different arenas (court, media, administration, expert committees, etc.)…”

“…Why some potential risks become public issues and others not is a common question (Joly and Marris, 2003), usually linked to a second one: why is it that risks with a weak probability of occurrence, or limited effects, generate strong controversies, social movements, and highly publicized public decisions, while apparently higher risks (in terms of probability or outcomes) seem to cause less of a stir? A third question follows: how can variations between the regulation of different risks in a given country be explained, when differing potential outcomes or probabilities offer no explanation as to the level of attention they achieve?…”

“…Whilst it is customary to see such controversies as the triggering event which results in a risk being set on the public agenda, several authors point to the initial framing of the problem as a more determining factor. Joly and Marris (2003), comparing the case of GMOs in Europe and the USA, show that the decision by US authorities not to adopt a specific regulatory framework on GMOs made it harder for opponents to contest these later on, since food products made with GMOs had no real existence as a distinct category. By contrast, the choice by European authorities to provide a framework for the use of this new technology afforded a target for pressure groups, in particular to obtain the labelling of foodstuffs.…”

“…The regulatory framework also plays a determining role on the impact of scientific knowledge. For instance, by promoting the precautionary principle the EU encourages the development of scientific controversies (Joly and Marris, 2003;Noiville, 2001). In the case of asbestos, the decision to turn to INSERM (the French national institute for medical research) for expertise rather than to the usual Ministry of Labour experts, often close to private interests, has opened the spectrum of available scientific information (Henry, 2004).…”