The Inclusion of Nonsafety Criteria within the Regulatory Framework of Agricultural Biotechnology: Exploring Factors that Are Likely to Influence Policy Transfer

Abstract

Policy makers of various countries are exposed to critiques that call for the consideration of issues that transcend human, animal, and environmental safety concerns when assessing agricultural biotechnology products. While some jurisdictions have decided to broaden the scope of their approval process for genetically modified (GM) foods, this paper analyzes legal, political, and economic factors that can influence the transfer of these initiatives. Drawing on mechanisms presented in the policy transfer literature, this article examines their mixed effects pertaining to the regulation of biotechnology. Although the mechanisms of competition and coercion do not preclude such a possibility, one must admit that they do not create any incentives for policy makers to include nonsafety criteria within biotechnology regulations. By contrast, to varying degrees, the mechanisms of mimicry and learning can foster the transfer of such a broadened scope that allows a better assessment of GM foods' social acceptability.

Determinants of Firm‐Level Lobbying and Government Responsiveness in Agricultural Biotechnology in China

“…Supporters and opponents of GM technology use various methods to mobilize the public on the issue of GM foods and further influence the policy makers to change policies (Tosun & Schaub, ). Policy makers often have to decide between responding to public concerns and giving priority to the needs of the biotechnology industry (Marcoux, Gomez, & Létourneau, ). It is important for the government to deal with the policy through strategic communication, especially when facing safety uncertainty and potential negative consequences from the GM technology (Wenzelburger & König, ).…”

Non-safety Assessments of Genome-Edited Organisms: Should They be Included in Regulation?

“…However, this is optional, so there is no requirement to perform an assessment of socio-economic impacts or to take such assessments into account during the approval process in EU. Although several countries include non-safety assessments in their GMO evaluation, Norway is arguably the country with most experience with such evaluations (Marcoux et al 2013 ; Roger 2015 ). The Norwegian Act of 1993 requires consideration of ethical issues, societal utility and contribution to sustainability of GMOs, as well as of direct and indirect impacts on agricultural practice of GMOs in the assessment processes.…”

Time for a New EU Regulatory Framework for GM Crops?

“…5 A number of legislations presently in force allow for non-safety considerations to play a role in the GM approval process, including Norway, Sweden, and Argentina (Falck-Zepeda 2009;Marcoux, Cardenas Gomez and Létourneau 2013).…”