Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsible Agro-Food Biotechnology: Precaution as Public Reflexivity and Ongoing Engagement in the Service of Sustainable Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Food Ethics

Abstract

In Europe, agro-food biotechnologies arouse a lot of controversy. The scope of issues debated during the past four decades of their development has been extending rather than shrinking. And it looks as if many of these issues have been transferred to other new and emergent technologies. This paper considers the adequacy of Europe’s regulatory reaction – in the way it interprets and uses the precautionary principle – to respond to these issues. It argues that a fundamental re-interpretation of this principle is needed. It should be re-linked to the guiding idea of sustainable development. This re-linking implies a collective engagement, construction of projections for the future, and a continuous learning process of responsible acting.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arcuri A (2007) Reconstructing precaution, deconstructing misconceptions. Ethics Int Aff 21(3):359–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (1991) Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environment 33:43–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen S (1994) The precautionary principle in Germany – Enabling government. In: O’Riordan T, Cameron J (eds) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London, pp. 31–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Calman K, Smith D (2001) Works in theory but not in practice? The role of the precautionary principle in Public Health Policy. Public Admin 79:185–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr S (2002) Ethical and value-based aspects of the European Commission’s precautionary principle. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:31–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COGEM (2003) Naar een integraal ethisch-maatschappelijk toetsingskader voor moderne biotechnologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • COM (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle

    Google Scholar 

  • Deblonde M, du-Jardin P (2005) Deepening a precautionary European policy. J Agric Environ Ethics 18:319–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deblonde M, Van Oudheusden M, Evers J, Goorden L (2008) Co-creating nano-imaginaries: Report of a Delphi-Exercise. Bull Sci Technol Soc 28:372–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeKay ML, Small MJ, Fischbeck PS, Farrow RS, Cullen A, Kadane JB, Lave LB, Morgan MG, Takemura K (2002) Risk-based decision analysis in support of precautionary policies. J Risk Res 5:391–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devos Y, Maeseele P, Reheul D, Van Speybroeck L, Dewaele D (2007) Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility. J Agric Environ Ethics 20:33–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovers SR, Handmer JW (1995) Ignorance, the precautionary principle, and sustainability. Ambio 24:92–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy J-P, Grinbaum A (2006) Living with uncertainty: Toward an ongoing normative assessment of nanotechnology. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges. Implications for philosophy, ethics, society. World Scientific, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Stares S, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends

    Google Scholar 

  • Goorden L (2003) Finding a balance between technological innovation and deliberation. Lessons from Belgian Public Forums on biotechnology. In: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Haag D, Kaupenjohann M (2001) Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and the precautionary principle – A roadmap for modeling for decision-making. Ecol Model 144:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harremöes P, Gee D, Macgarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Guedes Vaz S (2002) The precautionary principle in the 20th century. Late lessons from early warnings. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry C, Henry M (2003) L’essence du principe de précaution: la science incertaine mais néanmoins fiable.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen KK (2002) The moral foundation of the precautionary principle. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:39–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility. In search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson M (2003) Biosafety principles for GMOs in the context of sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 10:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L (2001) Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM crops in Europe. Soc Stud Sci 31:842–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt RE (2004) The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe: From precautionary principle to (regulatory) impact analysis. J Risk Uncertain 28:237–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfstedt RE, Fischhoff B, Fischhoff I (2002) Precautionary principles: General definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms. J Policy Anal Manage 21:381–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant GE, Mossman KL (2004) Arbitrary & capricious. The precautionary principle in the European Union Courts. The AEI Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer S, Stirling A (2002) Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments. Lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham C, von Schomberg R (2000) The ethic of scientists and engineers: From occupational role responsibility to public co-responsibility. In: Kroes P, Meijers A (eds) Research in philosophy and technology. JAI Press, Amsterdam [etc.], pp. 167–189

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien M (2003) Science in the service of good: The precautionary principle and positive goals. In: Tickner JA (ed) Precaution, environmental science and preventive public policy. Island Press, Washington/Covelo/London, pp. 279–295

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T, Cameron J (1994) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan T, Jordan A, Cameron J (2001) Reinterpreting the precautionary principle. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Punie Y, Maghiros I, Delaitre S (2006) Dark scenarios as a constructive tool for future-oriented technology analysis: Safeguards in a world of ambient intelligence (SWAMI), Second International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis. Impact of FTA Approaches on Policy and Decision-Making. Seville

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffensperger C, deFur L (1999) Implementing the precautionary principle: Rigorous science and solid ethics. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:933–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci PF, Rice D, Ziagos J, Cox LAJ (2003) Precaution, uncertainty and causation in environmental decisions. Environ Int 29:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15:349–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandin P (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:889–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandin P, Peterson M, Hansson SO, Ruden C, Juthe A (2002) Five charges against the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 5:287–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler R (2007) Nanotechnology and social context. Bull Sci Technol Soc 27:446–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D (2005) This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In: Rodemeyer M, Sarewitz D, Wilsdon J (eds) The future of technology assessment. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr C (2003) The precautionary principle versus risk analysis. Risk Anal 23:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “Closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner JA (2003) Precaution, environmental science and preventive public policy. Island Press, Washington/Covelo/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Todt O (2004) Regulating agricultural biotechnology under uncertainty. Safety Sci 42:143–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treich N (2000) Décision séquentielle et principe de précatuion. Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales 55–56:6–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner D, Hartzell L (2004) The lack of clarity in the precautionary principle. Environ Values 13:449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt H, Gremmen B (2002) Between precautionary principle and ‘sound science’: Distributing the burdens of proof. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon J (2005b) Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In: Rodemeyer M, Sarewitz D, Wilsdon J (eds) The future of technology assessment. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute Society and Technology – Flemish Parliament, Brussels, Belgium

    Marian Deblonde

Authors
  1. Marian Deblonde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marian Deblonde .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Schweisfurth Foundation, Suedliches Schlossrondrell 1, München, 80638, Germany

    Franz-Theo Gottwald

  2. FB 1 Philosophie, Geschichts-,, Religions- u. Sozialwissensch., Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 12, Essen, 45117, Germany

    Hans Werner Ingensiep

  3. Janssenstr. 26, Essen, 45147, Germany

    Marc Meinhardt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Deblonde, M. (2010). Responsible Agro-Food Biotechnology: Precaution as Public Reflexivity and Ongoing Engagement in the Service of Sustainable Development. In: Gottwald, FT., Ingensiep, H., Meinhardt, M. (eds) Food Ethics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5765-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation