Genetic engineering in agriculture: New approaches for risk management through sustainability reporting
Introduction
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been introduced in the agricultural system and on the market of consumer goods in the last 10–20 years, initially in the USA but also increasingly in developing countries. Since the discovery of genetic engineering, with its potential to modify DNA of living organisms, discussion and controversy have been abundant [1], [2] both cited in [3]. Europe has witnessed a particularly strong resistance to the introduction of GMOs in agriculture and for consumer food products, both from consumers, national governments and from the EU. The public objections had numerous causes, including the concerns about the risk assessment, the ethics and equity issues, power relations and the mistrust of technocrats and public authorities. The resistance in Asia, Latin America and North America has been generally weaker than in Europe, although some authors have voiced scathing criticism of the US governments and the industrial lobby for abusing famine in Africa to foster the spread of GM food to developing countries [4].
In response to the criticism, the European governments have attempted to improve the risk assessment methods and its scientific basis, and to tailor public policies to the growing demand for transparency, accountability, and public participation. Much less progress has occurred to date in the actual articulation of these ideas: the form which such public participation might take; how it would contribute to greater transparency and accountability; and how it would contribute to more effective and legitimate public policies.
In this paper, we contribute to clarifying these poorly elaborated concepts. Starting with the assumption that discourse and public engagement are indeed positive and necessary for solving the GMO controversy, we argue that the growing practice of voluntary sustainability reporting by companies can serve to enhance a discourse, including the widest possible range of participants, some of whom have been until now kept outside the debate; and that a multi-stakeholder discourse so created enhances societal participation in the strategic corporate decisions regarding the research and development trajectories for agricultural GMOs – constructive technology assessment – and elevates the idea of social accountability and social responsibility of producers of GMOs.
Section snippets
GMOs in agriculture and food: risks, public perceptions and regulation
In food biotechnology, genetic modification techniques have been most extensively applied to enhance enzyme production by microorganisms used in food manufacture [5]. In agriculture, the focus has been mostly on producing genetically modified crops that are resistant to insects, viral pathogens, and commonly used herbicides, such as Monsanto's Roundup [5], [6], [7]. Experiments are also under way to produce crops with enhanced nutritional and health benefits (‘functional foods’ and
The role for sustainability reporting
During the past decade two ideas have taken root in the discourse on corporate social responsibility: the need for regulatory institutions with a global reach [34], [35], [36], [37], and the need for incorporating accountability and transparency into standard business practice. In the area of environmental and social sustainability, companies around the world have rapidly responded by adopting the practice of voluntary reporting of performance in the environmental and social domains. Various
Discussion and conclusions
In this article, we have developed a framework for managing the societal controversy around GMOs in agriculture, in food and in fodder. We have argued that GMOs constitute an example of a new technology with largely unknown consequences and risks, as well as high potential benefits for society. Risk assessment in its traditional form, as proposed and practices by many actors, both scientists and regulators, appears to be inadequate and is by many actors perceived as overly technocratic. Many
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Sujatha Byravan from Gene-Watch for her critical and constructive comments on the draft of the paper. The research related to Global Reporting Initiative was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
Philip J. Vergragt is a Senior Associate at Tellus Institute since 2003, and a Visiting Scholar at MIT since 2005; he was a Professor of Technology Assessment from 1991 to 2003 at Delft University of Technology, and a Visiting Professorial Fellow at Manchester University, UK. His research areas are social influences on technological innovations for sustainability and sustainable consumption; they include studies in sustainable energy and transportation, including hydrogen fuel cells, also
References (54)
How should public policy respond to the challenges of modern biotechnology?
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol
(2004)- et al.
The social aspects of food biotechnology: a European view
Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
(1999) Genetically modified plants – the debate continues
Tree
(2000)- et al.
Detection approaches for genetically modified organisms in food
Food Res. Int.
(2005) Experience with environmental issues in GM crop production and the likely future scenarios
Toxicol. Lett.
(2002)- et al.
Plant biotechnology and its international regulation – FAO's initiative
Livest. Prod. Sci.
(2002) - et al.
Concluding remarks
Food Chem. Toxicol.
(2004) - et al.
Societal aspects of genetically modified foods
Food Chem. Toxicol.
(2004) Legitimate governance of risk at the EU level? The case of genetically modified organisms
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
(2006)- et al.
GMO and sustainable development in less favored regions: the need for alternative paths of development
J. Clean. Prod.
(2004)
DNA hybrid molecules
Science
Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules
Science
Feeding the famine? American food aid and the GMO debate in Southern Africa
Food Policy
The GMO debate: taking ethics seriously
Rights and Liberties in the Biotech Age; Why We Need A Genetic Bill of Rights
The typology of surprises in technology, institutions, and development
Who steers the field of consumer protection and environmental regulations?
Food safety regulations in the European Union and the United States: different cultures, different laws
Columbia J. Eur. Law
GM foods: shared risks and global action
Democracy and the governance of uncertainty. The case of agricultural gene technologies
J. Hazard. Mater.
The so-called ‘moratorium’ on the licensing of new genetically modified (GM) products by the European Union 1998–2004: a study in ambiguity
Env. Polit.
Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology
Sci. Public Policy
An appraisal of the working in practice of directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms: final study
Cited by (27)
Sustainable strategies in the development of functional foods
2021, Innovation Strategies in the Food Industry: Tools for Implementation, Second EditionApplication of terahertz spectroscopy and chemometrics for discrimination of transgenic camellia oil
2019, Spectrochimica Acta - Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular SpectroscopySustainable Innovation in Food Science and Engineering
2016, Innovation Strategies in the Food Industry: Tools for ImplementationHow to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more "participatory": The case of genetically modified plants
2016, Technological Forecasting and Social ChangeCitation Excerpt :Consumers, researchers, farmers, policy makers, and NGOs, amongst others, are concerned about the environmental (e.g. possible gene transfer to wild plants and non-target insects and invasion of resistant insects and weeds), human health (e.g. possible allergies and antibiotic resistance), ethical (e.g. consumers' right to decide whether to use GM products and the opportunity to avoid them), and socio-economic (e.g. power imbalance between multinational corporations and farmers) risks of using GMOs (Levidow, 1998; Cook et al., 2004; Borch and Rasmussen, 2005; Deisingh and Badrie, 2005; Vergragt and Brown, 2008). There have been attempts to address these concerns within participatory processes involving different stakeholders and using approaches such as interviews, workshops, focus groups, and conferences (e.g. Pellizzoni, 2001; Borch and Rasmussen, 2005; Vergragt and Brown, 2008; Cronin et al., 2014). However, scholars (ibid) still emphasise that stakeholders', especially citizens', concerns, interests, and values are not fully integrated in the assessment and policy making of GM plants.
Philip J. Vergragt is a Senior Associate at Tellus Institute since 2003, and a Visiting Scholar at MIT since 2005; he was a Professor of Technology Assessment from 1991 to 2003 at Delft University of Technology, and a Visiting Professorial Fellow at Manchester University, UK. His research areas are social influences on technological innovations for sustainability and sustainable consumption; they include studies in sustainable energy and transportation, including hydrogen fuel cells, also including questions of infrastructure, consumer acceptance, and social learning. Prof. Vergragt is a co-founder and is an Advisory Board member of the Greening of Industry Network. He has published more than 70 academic papers, co-authored 2 books, and lectured widely. Prof. Vergragt received his Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from Leiden University in 1976.
Halina Szejnwald Brown is Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA. She received a Ph.D. degree in chemistry from New York University. Prior to joining Clark University Brown was a chief toxicologist for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Brown's research focuses on environmental regulatory regimes in the US and Europe; the use of science and information in public policy; and the role of technological innovation in a transition to sustainability. Brown has authored about 50 articles and two books, and served on numerous state and national advisory panels, including: the National Academy of Science, Environmental Protection Agency, Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Institute, National Science Foundation; American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is a Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis, and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science