The anti-GMO advocacy: an institutionalist and systems-theoretic assessment

Abstract

Purpose Public debates on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are strongly influenced by the nongovernmental organization (NGO)-led advocacy, most of which is harshly critical of genetic engineering. This advocacy has resulted in discourse failures marked by the disregard for the scientific consensus on the risks and benefits of GMOs. This paper aims to present a theoretical inquiry into this phenomenon. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on American institutionalism and Niklas Luhmann social systems theory, the paper explains these discourse failures in terms of the problematic relationship between institutions and technology. Findings Clarence Ayres would likely see these discourse failures as a form of “institutional resistance” to the progress of science and technology. In contrast, Marc Tool’s social value principle stresses the importance of democratic legitimation and public acceptance of new technologies, while being sensitive to the possibility of ideologically biased discourses. It is argued that the institutionalist understanding of the interplay between democracy, science and technology would benefit from a better account of Niklas Luhmann’s concept of “complexity reduction”. Social implications The study shows that some NGOs are powerful enough to actively shape, if not manipulate, public attitudes and sentiments against GMOs. Originality/value The case of the anti-GMO advocacy calls for a new conceptualization of how democracy, science and technology fit together.

East of nature. Accounting for the environments of social sciences

“…4 invites the use of strategic management tools for the purposes of the multienvironmental screening and accounting of the diverse logics and observational perspectives (Roth et al, 2018). These tools would open radically new possibilities for navigating multidimensional sustainability risks, particularly for those types of social systems (such as corporations) that are known to systematically blind out specific segments of environmental complexity or stakeholder interests (Will et al, 2018;Valentinov et al, 2019aValentinov et al, , 2019b. Take classical environmental scanning tools such as PEST or its derivates PESTLE, STEEPLE, STEEPLED (see Roth et al, 2017, p. 200f), many of which give additional weight to ethics and the natural environment.…”

“…Yet, the understandings of naturalness can be often themselves unmasked as social constructions framed by the prevailing institutional structure (cf. Valentinov et al, 2019aValentinov et al, , 2019b.…”

Trend of Biotechnology Applications in Pest Management: A Review

“…Many citizens, politicians and countries generally take those arguments to reinforce misconceptions about GM crop. In this regard Sanchez and Parrott (2017) and Valentinov et al, (2018) analyzed the critiques on anti-GMO advocacy and scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects. Accordingly, a total of 35 studies represent fewer than 5% of all published studies assessing GM food/feed safety were analyzed by Sanchez and Parrott (2017).…”

“…In general terms, all papers analyzed violate at least one of the basic standards for assessment of GM food/feed safety mentioned above. On the other hand, Valentinov et al, (2018) revealed that the anti-GMO advocacy usually involve NGOs having diverse competitive agendas.…”

Agrarian Vision, Industrial Vision, and Rent-Seeking: A Viewpoint

“…Blancke et al 2015). While these campaigns have helped interest groups such as NGOS increase their donative funding, they have downplayed the right of individual farmers to make independent business decisions about the employment of biotechnology (Valentinov et al 2019). The increased donative income of such interest groups can thus be believed to include rents extracted from those farmers and consumers who might have benefited from a more liberal regulatory environment (ibid).…”