Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Precautionary Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Implications for Policy and Science

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The commercial introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has revealed a broad range of views among scientists and other stakeholders on perspectives of genetic engineering (GE) and if and how GMOs should be regulated. Within this controversy, the precautionary principle has become a contentious issue with high support from skeptical groups but resisted by GMO advocates. How to handle lack of scientific understanding and scientific disagreement are core issues within these debates. This article examines some of the key issues affecting precaution as a legal standard and as an approach to the use of science in decision-making processes. It is pointed out that there is a need for reflection over the level of scientific evidence required for applying the precautionary principle as well as who should have the burden of proof when there are uncertainties. Further, an awareness of the broader scientific uncertainties found in GMO risk assessment implies that a precautionary approach must be elaborated: both for acknowledging uncertainties and for identification of scientific responses. Since precaution is an important issue within the sustainable development framework, it is suggested that sustainability can provide a normative standard that can help to reveal the influence and negotiate the importance of the various forms of uncertainty. Wise management of uncertainties and inclusion of normative aspects in risk assessment and management may help to ensure sustainable and socially robust GMO innovations at present and in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Gene Technology Act. (1993). The act relating to the production and use of genetically modified organism. Act no. 38 of 2 April 1993, Oslo. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Gene-Technology-Act.html?id=173031.

  • CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. (2000). http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol. Accessed June 15, 2006.

  • Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. (2003). UK http://www.aebc.gov.uk/. Accessed June 20, 2006.

  • Andow, D. A., & Hilbeck, A. (2004). Science-based risk assessment for non-target effects of transgenic crops. BioScience, 54, 637–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andow, D. A., & Zwahlen, C. (2006). Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecological Letters, 9, 196–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, S. (2007). What are we waiting for? EU, Parliament magazine, Jan 29, 2007.

  • Burgman, M. A. (2005). Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, D. M., & Cothern, R. (2000). Introduction to risk analysis. A systematic approach to science-based decision making. Rockville, MD, USA: Government Institutes.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC. Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle. (2000). http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2003.

  • CEC. European Council Directive 2001/18/EC. http://www.europa.eu.int/commm/food/fs/sc/scp/out31_en.html. Accessed Oct 25, 2004.

  • Daily, G. C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P. R., et al. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science, 289, 395–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Melo-Martin, I., & Meghani, Z. (2008). Beyond risk. EMBO Reports, 9, 302–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devos, Y., Maeseele, P., Reheul, D., Van Speybroeck, L., & De Waele, D. (2008). Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (Re)quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 29–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, M., Renn, O. (Eds.). (2009). Food safety governance. Integrating science, precaution and public involvement. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.

  • Duan, J. J., Teixeira, D., Huesing, J. E., & Jiang, C. (2008). Assessing the risk to nontarget organisms from Bt corn resistant to corn rootworms (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): Tier-I testing with Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Environmental Entomology, 37, 838–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEA: European Environment Agency. (2002). Late lessons from early warnings. The precautionary principle 1896–2000, http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/. Accessed Oct 25, 2007.

  • Eurobarometer. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Pattern and trends, Eurobarometer 64.3, G. Gaskell et al., Brussels: EC D-G research.

  • Foster, K. R., Vecchia, P., & Repacholi, M. H. (2000). Science and the precautionary principle. Science, 288, 979–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillund, F., Kjølberg, K., Krayer von Krauss, M., & Myhr, A. I. (2008). Do uncertainty analyses reveal uncertainties? Using the introduction of DNA vaccines to aquaculture as a case. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. D., & Wiener, J. B. (2008). The precautionary principle and risk-risk tradeoffs: A comment. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 465–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haller, S. F., & Gerrie, J. (2007). The role of science in public policy: Higher reason, or reason for hire. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20, 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslberger, A. G. (2006). Need for an “integrated safety assessment” of GMOs, linking food safety and environmental considerations. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 54, 3173–3180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, R. (2003). GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbeck, A., & Schmidt, J. E. U. (2006). Another view on Bt proteins–How specific are they and what else might they do? Biopesticides International, 2, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapuscinski, A. R., Goodman, R. M., Hann, S. D., Jacobs, L. R., Pullins, E. E., Johnson, C. S., et al. (2003). Making safety first a reality (2003). Making safety first a reality for biotechnology products. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 599–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, M. (2006). The Precautionary Principle, Swedish chemicals policy and sustainable development. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 337–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krayer von Krauss, M. P., Casman, E. A., & Small, M. J. (2004). Elicitation of expert judgments of uncertainty in the risk assessment of herbicide tolerant oilseed crops. Journal of Risk Analysis, 24, 1515–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krayer von Krauss, M. P., Kaiser, M., Almaas, V., van der Sluijs, J., & Kloprogge, P. (2008). Diagnosing and prioritizing uncertainties according to their relevance for policy: the case of transgene silencing. Science of the Total Environment, 390, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E. L., et al. (2001). The Precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 871–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvakkestad, V., Gillund, F., Kjølberg, K. A., & Vatn, A. (2007). Scientists′ perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environmental Values, 16, 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemons, J., Schrader-Frechette, K. S., & Cranor, C. (1997). The Precautionary principle; scientific uncertainty and type I and type II errors. Foundations of Science, 2, 207–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. (2001). Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science, 31, 842–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2007). GM crops on trial: Technological development as a real-world experiment. Futures, 39, 408–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lövei, G. L., & Arpaia, S. (2005). The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies; a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomologica Experimentalis et Applicata, 114, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvier, M. (2002). Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecological Applications, 12, 1119–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, S., & Stirling, A. (2004). GM crops: Good or bad? EMBO reports, 5, 1021–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J. (2002). The relationships between risk analysis and the precautionary principle. Toxicology, 181–182, 127–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2003). Sustainable development and Norwegian genetic engineering regulations: Applications, impacts and challenges. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2007). Poxvirus-vectored vaccines call for application of the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research, 10, 503–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K. M., & Myhr, A. I. (2007). Understanding the uncertainties arising from technological inventions in complex biological systems: The case of GMOs. In T. Traavik & L. C. Lim (Eds.), Biosafety first: Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (pp. 107–123). Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O′Riordan, T., & Cameron, J. (1994). Interpreting the precautionary principle. Sydney: Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffensperger, C., & Tickner, J. (1999). Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, N., & Burgman, M. A. (2006). Subjective uncertainties in habitat suitability maps. Ecological Modeling, 195, 172–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould, A. (2007). Ecological versus ecotoxcological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Science, 173, 589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, A. (2002). A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 12, 618–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, H. M., et al. (2003). Treatments of uncertainty and variability in ecological risk assessment of single-species populations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9, 889–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regulations relating to impact assessment pursuant to the Gene Technology Act. (2005). http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/acts-and-regulations/regulations/2005/regulations-relating-to-impact-assessmen.html?id=440455.

  • Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. (1992). Un.Doc/Co:NF.151/5/REV.1.

  • Romeis, J., Bartsch, D., Bigler, F., Candolfi, M. P., Gielkens, M. M. C., Hartley, S. E., et al. (2008). Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nature Biotechnology, 26, 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosendal, K., Myhr, A. I. (2008). GMO Assessment in Norway as compared to EU procedures: Societal utility and sustainable development, DN evaluations 2–2009. Trondheim, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, p. 52, (see short version Myhr, A. I., Rosendal, G. K. (2009) GMO assessment in Norway: Societal utility and sustainable development’. EMBO Reports, 10, 2–3).

  • Sandin, P. (2004). The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environmental Values, 13, 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido, O., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2007). Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops. Ten years of experiences from ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Advances in Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology, 107, 235–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanvido, O., Widmer, F., Winzeler, M., & Bigler, F. (2005). A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants. Environmental Biosafety Research, 4, 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2007). Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO reports, 8, 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2008). Science, precaution and the politics of technological risk. Annuals of New York Academy of Sciences, 1128, 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A., Mayer, S. (1999). Rethinking risk, a pilot multi-criteria mapping of genetically modified crop in agriculture systems in the UK, University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit, UK.

  • The New Zealand Commission. (2001). http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz/.

  • UNESCO COMEST. (2005). The Precautionary principle, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001395/139578e.pdf Accessed Oct 13, 2006.

  • Van der Sluijs, J. P. (1997). Anchoring amid uncertainty: On the management of uncertainties in risk assessment of anthropogenic climate change, Ph.D dissertation, University of Utrecht.

  • Von Schomberg, R. (2006). The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In E. Fisher, et al. (Eds.), Implementing the precautionary principle: Perspetives and prospects (pp. 19–42). UK: Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, W. E., Harremoöes, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., et al. (2003). Defining uncertainty; a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model based decision support. Journal of Integrated Assessment, 4, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, S. A., & Morris, M. C. (2005). Risks associated with genetic modification:–An annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 157–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (2003). Scientific uncertainty and science based precaution. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 137–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (2006). Can there be science-based precaution?. Environmental Research Letters, 1–7

  • Weiss, C. (2007). Defining precaution. Environment, 49.8, 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickson, F., Gillund, F. and Myhr, A. I. (2010). Treating nanoparticles with precaution: The importance of recognising qualitative uncertainty in scientific risk assessment. In: K. Kjølberg, F. Wickson (Eds.), Nano goes macro, social perspectives on nanoscience and nanotechnology. Pan Stanford Publishing. (in press).

  • Wiener, J. B., & Rogers, M. D. (2002). Comparing precaution in the US and Europe. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 317–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger, L. L., Naranjo, S. E., Lundgren, J. G., Bitzer, R. J., & Watrud, L. S. (2008). Bt crop effects on functional guilds of non-target Arthropods: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(5), e2118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088–2093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics of GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B., Felt, U. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. (Chair and Rapporteur) Expert group on science and governance, Brussels, European Commission D-G Research, Science Economy and Society Directorate. EUR 22700.

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank a number of anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GenØk-Center for Biosafety, The Science Park, P. O. Box 6418, 9294, Tromsø, Norway

    Anne Ingeborg Myhr

Authors
  1. Anne Ingeborg Myhr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Ingeborg Myhr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Myhr, A.I. A Precautionary Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Implications for Policy and Science. J Agric Environ Ethics 23, 501–525 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9234-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9234-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation