Abstract
Commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have sparked profound controversies concerning adequate approaches to risk regulation. Scientific uncertainty and ambiguity, omitted research areas, and lack of basic knowledge crucial to risk assessmentshave become apparent. The objective of this article is to discuss the policy and practical implementation of the Precautionary Principle. A major conclusion is that the void in scientific understanding concerning risks posed by secondary effects and the complexity ofcause-effect relations warrant further research. Initiatives to approach the acceptance or rejection of a number of risk-associated hypotheses is badly needed. Further, since scientific advice plays a key role in GMOregulations, scientists have a responsibility to address and communicate uncertainty to policy makers and the public. Hence, the acceptance of uncertainty is not only a scientific issue, but is related to public policy and involves an ethical dimension.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCESs
Aldhous, P., “Inquiry Blames Missed Warnings for Scale of Britain's BSE Crisis,” Nature 408 (2000), 3–5.
Bergelson, J., C. P. Purrington, and G. Wichmann, “Promiscuity in Transgenic Plants,” Nature395 (1998), 25.
Buhl-Mortensen, L. and S. Welin, “The Ethics of Doing Policy Relevant Science: The Precautionary Principle and the Significance of Non-significant Results,” Sci Eng Ethics 4 (1998), 401–412.
Butler, D. and T. Reichardt, “Long-term Effects of GMCrops Serves up Food for Thought,” Nature398 (1999), 652–656.
CBD: Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Internet http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/protocol, 2000.
Chévre A. M., F. Eber, A. Baranger, and M. Renard, “Gene Flow from Transgenic Crops,” Nature389 (1997), 924.
Covello, V. T. and M. W. Merkhofer, Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks (Plenum Press, New York, 1993), pp. 1–7.
Crawley, M. J., “Bollworms, Genes and Ecologists,” Nature 400 (1999), 501–502.
De Vries J. and W. Wackernagel, “Detection of nptII (kanamycin resistance) Genes in Genomes of Transgenic Plants by Marker-rescue Transformation,” Mol Gen Genet 257 (1998), 606–613.
Doerfler W., R. Schubbert, H. Heller, C. Kamner, K. Hilger-Eversheim, M. Knoblauch, and R. Remus, “Integration of Foreign DNA and its Consequences in Mammalian Systems,” TIBTECH15 (1997), 297–301.
Domingo, J. L., “Health Risks of GM Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data,” Science 288 (2000), 1748–1749.
Ewen, S. W. and A. Pusztai, “Effects of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestine,” Lancet 354 (1999), 1353–1354.
EU: Commision of the European Communities COM, Communication on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels 02. February, Internet http://europa.eu.int, 2000.
Foster, K. R., P. Vecchia, and M. H. Repacholi, “Science and the Precautionary Principle,” Science288 (2000), 979–981.
Freestone, D. and E. Hey, “Origins and Development of the Precautionary Principle,” in D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law (Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 1996), pp. 3–15.
Funtowiz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz, “Science for the Post Normal Age,” Futures 25 (1993), 739–755.
Garattini, S., “The Risk of Bias from Omitted Research,” BJM 321 (2000), 845–846.
Gaskell, G., M. W. Bauer, J. Durant, and N. C. Allum, “Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S,” Science 285 (1999), 384–387.
Holm, S. and J. Harris, “Precautionary Principle Stifles Discovery,” Nature 400 (1999), 398.
Inose T. and K. Murata, “Enhanced Accumulation of Toxic Compound in Yeast Cells Having High Glycolytic Activity: A Case Study on the Safety of Genetically Engineered Yeast,” Int J Food Sci Technol 30 (1995), 141–146.
James, C., Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000, ISAAA Briefs No. 21 (lIthaca, New York, Internet http://www.isaaa.org, 2000).
Johnson, B. and A. Hope, “GM Crops and Equivocal Environmental Benefits,” Nature Biotech 18 (2000), 242.
Lappé M. A., E. B. Bailey, C. Childress, and K. D. R. Setchell, “Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide tolerant soybeans,” J Med Food 1 (1999), 241–245.
Lemons J., K. S. Shrader-Frechette, and C Cranor, “The Precautionary Principle; Scientific Uncertainty and Type I and type II Errors,” Foundations of Science 2 (1997), 207–236.
Levidow L., S. Carr, and D. Wield, “Genetically Modified Crops in the European Union: Regulatory Conflicts as Precautionary Opportunities,” J Risk Res 3 (2000), 189–208.
Losey J. E., L. S. Rayor, and M. E. Carter, “Transgenic Pollen Harm Monarch Larvae,” Nature399 (1999), 214.
Mikkelsen T. R., B. Andersen, and R. B. Jørgensen, “The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread,” Nature380 (1996), 31.
Millstone E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer, “Beyond 'substantial Equivalence',” Nature 401 (1999), 525–526.
Mor T. S., M. A. Gomez-Lim, and K. E. Palmer, “Perspective: Edible Vaccines - a Concept Coming of Age,” Trends Microbiol 6 (1998), 449–453.
Myhr A. I. and T. Traavik, “The Precautionary Principle Applied to Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs),” Microb Ecol Hlth Dis 11 (1999), 65–74.
NENT (The National Committees for Research Ethics), Fast Salmon and Technoburger, Report from the Consensus Conference on Genetically Modified Food (clOslo, Forskningsparken, Norway, 1996).
Nielsen K. M., F. Gebbard, K. Smalla, K. M. Bones, and J. D. van Elsas, “Horizontal Gene Transfer from Transgenic Plants to Terrestrial Bacteria - a Rare Event?” FEMS Microbial Rev 22 (1998), 79–103.
Nielsen, T. H., “Behind the Color Code of ‘No',” Nature Biotech 15 (1997), 320–321.
Novak, W. K. and A. G. Haslberger, “Substantial Equivalence of Antinutrients and Inherent Plant Toxins in Genetically Modified Novel Foods,” Food Chem Tox 38 (2000), 473–483.
Raffensperger C., J. Tickner, T. Schettler, and A. Jordan, “...and Can Mean Saying ‘Yes’ to Innovation,” Nature 401 (1999), 207–208.
RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International), Biotech's Generation 3. RAFI (Communiqué 67/nov/dec, Winnipeg, Canada, Internet http://www.rafi.org, 2000).
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Un.Doc/CoNF.151/5/Rev.1 (1992).
Rotblat, Sir J., “A hippocratic Oath to Scientists,” Science 286 (1999), 1475.
Smith, J., “Nice Work - but Is It Science?” Nature 408 (2000), 293.
Sternheimer, J., “How Ethical Principles Can Aid Research,” Nature 402 (1999), 576.
Thompson, P. B., Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective, Techniques and perspectives in Food Biotechnology 1 (Chapmann & Hall, London, 1997), pp. 216–240.
Traavik, T., An Orphan in Science: Environmental risks of Genetically Engineered Vaccines, Research report for DN. No. 1999-6 (Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim, Norway, 1999).
Von Schomberg, R., An Appraisal of the Working in Practice of Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (Luxembourg: STOA, European Parliament. PE 166.953/Final/Rev, 1998).
Watkinson, A. R., R. P. Freckleton, R. A. Robinson, and W. J. Sutherland, “Predictions of Biodiversity Response to Genetically Modified Herbicide-tolerant Crops,” Science 289 (2000), 1554–1556.
Williams, N., “Can Regulations Requiring Labeling of Genetically Modified FoodsWork?” Science281 (1998), 269.
Wolfenbarger, L. L. and P. R. Phifer, “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants,” Science 290 (2000), 2088–2093.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Myhr, A.I., Traavik, T. The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO Use and Release. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15, 73–86 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013814108502
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013814108502