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.
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.
Andow, D. A., & Zwahlen, C. (2006). Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecological Letters, 9, 196–214.
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.
Byrd, D. M., & Cothern, R. (2000). Introduction to risk analysis. A systematic approach to science-based decision making. Rockville, MD, USA: Government Institutes.
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.
De Melo-Martin, I., & Meghani, Z. (2008). Beyond risk. EMBO Reports, 9, 302–308.
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.
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.
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.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
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.
Graham, J. D., & Wiener, J. B. (2008). The precautionary principle and risk-risk tradeoffs: A comment. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 465–474.
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.
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.
Heller, R. (2003). GM Nation? The findings of the public debate. London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry.
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.
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.
Karlsson, M. (2006). The Precautionary Principle, Swedish chemicals policy and sustainable development. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 337–360.
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.
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.
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.
Kvakkestad, V., Gillund, F., Kjølberg, K. A., & Vatn, A. (2007). Scientists′ perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environmental Values, 16, 79–104.
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.
Levidow, L. (2001). Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science, 31, 842–874.
Levidow, L., & Carr, S. (2007). GM crops on trial: Technological development as a real-world experiment. Futures, 39, 408–431.
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.
Marvier, M. (2002). Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecological Applications, 12, 1119–1124.
Mayer, S., & Stirling, A. (2004). GM crops: Good or bad? EMBO reports, 5, 1021–1024.
Morris, J. (2002). The relationships between risk analysis and the precautionary principle. Toxicology, 181–182, 127–130.
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.
Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2007). Poxvirus-vectored vaccines call for application of the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research, 10, 503–525.
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.
O′Riordan, T., & Cameron, J. (1994). Interpreting the precautionary principle. Sydney: Federation Press.
Raffensperger, C., & Tickner, J. (1999). Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington: Island Press.
Ray, N., & Burgman, M. A. (2006). Subjective uncertainties in habitat suitability maps. Ecological Modeling, 195, 172–186.
Raybould, A. (2007). Ecological versus ecotoxcological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Science, 173, 589–602.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403.
Stirling, A. (2007). Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO reports, 8, 309–315.
Stirling, A. (2008). Science, precaution and the politics of technological risk. Annuals of New York Academy of Sciences, 1128, 95–110.
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.
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.
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.
Weiss, C. (2003). Scientific uncertainty and science based precaution. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 3, 137–166.
Weiss, C. (2006). Can there be science-based precaution?. Environmental Research Letters, 1–7
Weiss, C. (2007). Defining precaution. Environment, 49.8, 36–39.
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.
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.
Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088–2093.
Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2, 111–127.
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics of GMOs. Science as Culture, 10, 445–481.
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.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9234-x