Unsound science? Transatlantic regulatory disputes over GM crops

Abstract

In the risk debate over genetically modified (GM) crops, Europe's regulatory delays have often been branded as 'political', i.e. not based on science. Yet the US slogan 'sound science' tends to conceal value-laden features of safety claims, their weak scientific basis, their normative framing and their socio-political influences. By contrast a 'precautionary approach' can more readily identify scientific unknowns to be investigated, while acknowledging the agricultural-environmental values which inform risk assessment. These issues underlie transatlantic regulatory disputes over insectprotected Bt maize.In both the USA and Europe, public protest has stimulated risk-assessment research on broader cause-effect pathways, as well as more stringent regulation. For harm to non-target insects, however, new evidence of risk has been disparaged as unsound. It has been criticized on various grounds, which could apply just as well to evidence of safety; thus double standards have served to protect safety claims. And non-target harm is deemed acceptable through unsubstantiated comparisons to agrochemical usage. In these ways, 'sound science' operates as an ideology, pre-empting debate on the framing of scientific uncertainty. The real choice is not between 'science versus politics', but rather between ways of linking them.

Can food safety policy-making be both scientifically and democratically legitimated? If so, how?

“…Those changes were explicitly articulated by the European Parliament when replacing Directive 90/220 with Directive 2001/18. When evidence emerged in the USA in 1999 indicating that the cultivation of GM crops might adversely affect emblematic species such as the Monarch butterfly, the authorities widened the scope of their deliberations about the possible environmental effects of cultivating such crops (Losey et al, 1999;Jasanoff, 2000, Levidow andCarr, 2000).…”

Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa

“…Even in the United Kingdom, probably the most pro-biotech of European countries, popular opinion has forced supermarket chains to refuse to carry GM foods, and an inquiry commissioned by the government and a long consultative process with the general public has concluded that GM crops carry uncertain risks to the environment. The EU has already proven its willingness to reject WTO decisions where there is scientific uncertainty regarding the potential health effects of a product and strong public support for the continued moratorium (as, for example, in the case of bovine growth hormone, where the EU has accepted the imposition of countervailing sanctions against some of its exports to maintain the moratorium on BGH) (Levidow and Susan, 2000). The implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the ''precautionary principle,'' which permits the regulation of GMOs in the context of scientific uncertainty regarding the risks of such organisms, only strengthens the EUÕs position.…”

The release of genetically modified crops into the environment

“…An associated problem is to define the science required for such comparisons (Levidow and Carr, 2000). In case of GM crops it may be worthwhile to have the precautionary principle work both ways and require its application to the overall situation of potential costs and potential benefits (De Kathen, 1998;Goklany, 2000).…”

“…This may indicate that many of the concerns raised about GM crops reflect more the concerns about the changing nature of agriculture at large (Beringer, 2000), which draws on values and philosophical positions that are not readily changed upon the presentation of technical information. We acknowledge the prime importance of socio-economic and other issues for a proper technology assessment (Bruce and Bruce, 1998;EFB, 1999;NCB, 1999) and realise that prudent and transparent linking of science and politics may be the biggest challenge for the overall evaluation of GM crops (Levidow and Carr 2000). Despite this, we limit the scope of this review to the issues of plant science we consider to be most relevant.…”