Problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA) for genetically modified organisms: the Kenya case study.

Nelson, Kristen C.; Kibata, G.; Lutta, M.; Okuro, J. O.; Muyekho, Francis N.; Odindo, MO; Ely, Adrian; Waquil, J. M.

doi:10.1079/9780851998619.0057

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a first step, Nelson et al . () developed and tested a participatory problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA) process involving multiple stakeholders and scientists at the beginning, framing stages of an ERA, which can be repeated at critical stages as new information emerges. As such, PFOA represents an important step in developing tested methodologies for stakeholder engagement in formal ERA processes.…”

Section: Social Learning and Environmental Risk Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, there is support for ERAs of other novel, worrisome stressors such as non-native species, bio-engineered organisms and nanomaterials to also include more transparency and stakeholder participation in hopes of improving the quality and societal relevance of resulting decisions (Nelson et al, 2009). As a first step, Nelson et al (2004) developed and tested a participatory problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA) process involving multiple stakeholders and scientists at the beginning, framing stages of an ERA, which can be repeated at critical stages as new information emerges. As such, PFOA represents an important step in developing tested methodologies for stakeholder engagement in formal ERA processes.…”

Section: Social Learning and Environmental Risk Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Learning Through Environmental Risk Analysis of Biodiversity and GM Maize in South Africa

Dana

Nelson

2012

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental risk analyses (ERAs) can benefit from participatory methods that enhance social learning, whereby diverse participants share knowledge and perspectives to learn about complex socio‐ecological systems, develop a collective understanding of the risk problem and build support for specific solutions. We used surveys and interviews to investigate social learning among 22 stakeholders during a participatory ERA workshop to evaluate risks of genetically modified maize to South African biodiversity. The ERA process incorporated methodologies designed to enhance social learning, such as open communication, constructive conflict and extended engagement. We observed that social learning occurred as participants understood new information and perspectives, began thinking systemically and transformed their impressions of other participants. In this workshop, they did not develop a shared understanding of the ERA process or priority risks. However, the ERA workshop did engender social learning about other stakeholders, socio‐ecological systems and risk, creating a foundation for longer, iterative engagement needed to build shared understanding of complex problems and solutions related to biodiversity governance. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

show abstract

Section: Social Learning and Environmental Risk Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Learning and Environmental Risk Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Learning Through Environmental Risk Analysis of Biodiversity and GM Maize in South Africa

Dana

Nelson

2012

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite disagreements about TGMVs and appropriate risk management in TBAS, both proponents and opponents generally recognize the: (a) dramatic spread of TGMVs globally, from 1.7 to 81.0 million hectares between 1996 and 2004, being 5% of the total crop area (James, 2004), including in the Third World, where over 27.6 million hectares in 11 countries were sown to TGMVs in 2004, 34% of the global area in TGMVs; (b) importation into TBAS countries of large amounts of grain containing TGMV seed (especially from the US) (USDA FAS, 2005), (c) high probability of unintentional transgene flow, including into centers of diversity, e.g., maize transgenes documented in Mexican FVs by some studies (Alvarez-Buylla, 2003;AlvarezMorales, 2002;Quist and Chapela, 2001), the effects of which may often be irreversible (Ellstrand, 2003a), though their presence or persistence is disputed by one study (Ortiz-García et al, 2005); (d) rapid development of thirdgeneration TGMVs, including maize, that produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals (Andow et al, 2004;Ellstrand, 2003b); and (e) need for participation of those potentially affected is essential, not only in evaluating risks, but in all four steps in the RMP (Frewer, 2003;NRC, 2002), as well as in broader benefit-cost analysis (Nelson et al, 2004).…”

Section: Tgmvs and Tbasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use the RMP as a framework, realizing that providing cost estimates of potential harm from TGMVs is a necessary step for a broader analysis of the potential of TGVs for TBAS (NRC, 2002), including potential benefits of TGMVs (Goklany, 2002), as well as benefits and costs of existing MVs and alternatives including transgenic FVs (TGFVs) and the products of participatory plant breeding (Murphy et al, 2005). One trial run of comparative benefit-cost for Bt maize in Kenya on a limited, exploratory scale, identified the need for much more data (Nelson et al, 2004).…”

Section: The Risk Management Process As An Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the potential impact of transgenic crops in traditional agriculture: maize farmers’ perspectives in Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico

Soleri

Cleveland

Aragon

et al. 2005

Environ. Biosafety Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetically engineered transgenic crop varieties (TGVs) have spread rapidly in the last 10 years, increasingly to traditionally-based agricultural systems (TBAS) of the Third World both as seed and food. Proponents claim they are key to reducing hunger and negative environmental impacts of agriculture. Opponents claim they will have the opposite effect. The risk management process (RMP) is the primary way in which TGVs are regulated in the US (and many other industrial countries), and proponents claim that the findings of that process in the US and its regulatory consequences should be extended to TBAS. However, TBAS differ in important ways from industrial agriculture, so TGVs could have different effects in TBAS, and farmers there may evaluate risks and benefits differently. To evaluate some potential impacts of TGVs in TBAS we used the RMP as a framework for the case of Bt maize in Mesoamerica and Cuba. We interviewed 334 farmers in Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico about farming practices, evaluations of potential harm via hypothetical scenarios, and ranking of maize types. Results suggest high potential for transgene flow via seed, grain and pollen; differences in effects of this exposure in TBAS compared with industrial agriculture; farmers see some potential consequences as harmful. Perceptions of harm differ among farmers in ways determined by their farming systems, and are different from those commonly assumed in industrial systems. An RMP including participation of farmers and characteristics of TBAS critical for their functioning is necessary to ensure that investments in agricultural technologies will improve, not compromise these agricultural systems.

show abstract

“…Information on the intended effect(s) include(s) for example all available data on the problem to be solved with the proposed GM plant, efficacy data of the GM plant demonstrating the ability to solve that problem, the severity of the problem, how widespread the problem is and who is mostly affected by the problem. To do that in an inclusive and transparent manner, scientists have developed a stakeholder process and tested it for the use in ERA of GM organisms [30,31]. This procedure was recently transformed into a practical guidance handbook [32].…”

Section: Defining the 'Case'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies

Hilbeck¹,

Meier

Römbke

et al. 2011

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purpose: In Europe, the EU Directive 2001/18/EC lays out the main provisions of environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) organisms that are interpreted very differently by different stakeholders. The purpose of this paper is to: (a) describe the current implementation of ERA of GM plants in the EU and its scientific shortcomings, (b) present an improved ERA concept through the integration of a previously developed selection procedure for identification of non-target testing organisms into the ERA framework as laid out in the EU Directive 2001/18/EC and its supplement material (Commission Decision 2002/623/EC), (c) describe the activities to be carried out in each component of the ERA and (d) propose a hierarchical testing scheme. Lastly, we illustrate the outcomes for three different crop case examples. Main features: Implementation of the current ERA concept of GM crops in the EU is based on an interpretation of the EU regulations that focuses almost exclusively on the isolated bacteria-produced novel proteins with little consideration of the whole plant. Therefore, testing procedures for the effect assessment of GM plants on non-target organisms largely follow the ecotoxicological testing strategy developed for pesticides. This presumes that any potential adverse effect of the whole GM plant and the plant-produced novel compound can be extrapolated from testing of the isolated bacteriaproduced novel compound or can be detected in agronomic field trials. This has led to persisting scientific criticism. Results: Based on the EU ERA framework, we present an improved ERA concept that is system oriented with the GM plant at the centre and integrates a procedure for selection of testing organisms that do occur in the receiving environment. We also propose a hierarchical testing scheme from laboratory studies to field trials and we illustrate the outcomes for three different crop case examples. Conclusions and recommendations: Our proposed concept can alleviate a number of deficits identified in the current approach to ERA of GM plants. It allows the ERA to be tailored to the GM plant case and the receiving environment.

show abstract

Problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA) for genetically modified organisms: the Kenya case study.

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Social Learning Through Environmental Risk Analysis of Biodiversity and GM Maize in South Africa

Social Learning Through Environmental Risk Analysis of Biodiversity and GM Maize in South Africa

Understanding the potential impact of transgenic crops in traditional agriculture: maize farmers’ perspectives in Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico

Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants - concepts and controversies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About