Assessment of GM Crops in Commercial Agriculture

The caliber of recent discourse regarding geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) has suffered from a lack of consensuson terminology, from the scarcity of evidence upon which toassess risk to health and to the environment, and from valuedifferences between proponents and opponents of GMOs. Towardsaddressing these issues, we present the thesis that GM should bedefined as the forcible insertion of DNA into a host genome,irrespective of the source of the DNA, and exclusive ofconventional or mutation breeding.Some defenders of the commercial use of GMOs have referred to thescientific work of GMO critics as ``junk science.' Such a claim isfalse and misleading, given that many papers critical of both theutility and safety of GMOs have been published in peer reviewedjournals by respected scientists. In contrast, there is a dearthof peer reviewed work to substantiate the frequently heardassertions of either safety or utility in GMOs. The polarity,which now characterizes much of the public discourse on GMOs,reflects not simply scientific disagreement, but alsodisagreement in underlying value assumptions. Value differencesstrongly affect the assessment of both benefit and harm fromGMOs.The concept of substantial equivalence occupies a pivotalposition in the GMO risk assessment process that is used in bothCanada and the US. A GMO judged to be substantially equivalent toa conventional product – as have all submissions to date – ispresumed to be safe enough for commercialization. The conclusionof safety – from both human health and environmental perspectives– should be based on scientific evidence, corroborated by actualexperimentation. However, regulators infer safety largely fromassumptions-based reasoning, with little or no experimentalvalidation. The judgement of safety because of substantialequivalence is a dubious argument by analogy.     

Sustainable Development and Norwegian Genetic Engineering Regulations: Applications, Impacts, and Challenges

The main purpose of The NorwegianGene Technology Act (1993) is to enforcecontainment of genetically modified organisms(GMOs) and control of GMO releases.Furthermore, the Act intends to ensure that``production and use of GMOs should take placein an ethically and socially justifiable way,in accordance with the principle of sustainabledevelopment and without detrimental effects tohealth and the environment.' Hence it isobvious that, for the Norwegian authorities,sustainable development is a normativeguideline when evaluating acceptableconsequences of GMO use and production. Inaccordance with this, we have investigated theextent to which the sustainability criteriawere decisive for the destiny of one approvedand one declined application of geneticallymodified plant release. The presentunderstanding of the ecological,socio-economical, and cultural consequences ofGMO use and release is fragmentary anduncertain. We consider the PrecautionaryPrinciple and the notion of equitabledistribution as key issues within thesustainable development framework, henceconstituting important foundations for ouranalyses. The Act is legitimizingsustainability criteria, but does not seem tosecure their conversion into concrete action.We envisage a more conscious implementation ofthe Norwegian Gene Technology Act.Sustainability concerns ecological, economical,and social values, and these can only beensured through long-term thinking, initiationof independent risk-associated research, andbroad involvement of all stakeholders in theevaluation of GMO issues and concerns.     

GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

Proponents of using genetically modified (GM) crops and food in the developing world often claim that it is unjust not to use GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. In reply, the critics of GMOs claim that while GMOs may be useful as a technological means to increase yields and crop quality, stable and efficient institutions are required in order to provide the benefits from GMO technology. In this debate, the GMO proponents tend to rely on a simple utilitarian type of calculus that highlights the benefits of GMOs to the poor, but that overlooks the complex institutional requirements necessary for GMO production. The critics, recognizing the importance of institutional conditions, focus primarily on the negative impacts of institutional deficiencies, thereby overlooking the basically Rawlsian claim that institutions per se may generate claims to justice. This article investigates how GMOs might generate claims to global justice and what type of justice is involved. The paper argues that the debate on GMOs and global justice can be categorized into three views, i.e., the cosmopolitan, the pluralist, and the sceptic. The cosmopolitan holds that GMOs can and should be used for alleviating global hunger, whereas the sceptic rejects this course of action. I will argue here for a moderately cosmopolitan approach, relying on the pluralist view of institutions and the need to exploit the benefits of GMOs. This argument rests on the premise that global cooperation on GMO production provides the relevant basis for assessing the use of GMOs by the standard of global distributive justice.     

The US’ Food and Drug Administration, Normativity of Risk Assessment, GMOs, and American Democracy

The process of risk assessment of biotechnologies, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), has normative dimensions. However, the US’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seems committed to the idea that such evaluations are objective. This essay makes the case that the agency’s regulatory approach should be changed such that the public is involved in deciding any ethical or social questions that might arise during risk assessment of GMOs. It is argued that, in the US, neither aggregative nor deliberative (representative) democracy ought to be used to make such determinations. Instead, participatory (deliberative) democracy should be the means by which members of the polity decide which normative concerns ought to underlie FDA’s assessment of GMOs. This paper uses a hypothetical case involving a new GM seed to make that argument.     

Finding a Balance Over Precaution

Three interpretations of theprecautionary principle are identified, namely``soft,' ``hard,' and outright rejection. The ECCommunication of February 2000 is largely aresponse to the latter, to provide alegitimation in trade-related WTO disputes.This context leads to an over stress onscientific closure. This is critiqued asidealistic in respect of resolving long termuncertainties inherent in the GM food issue.While offering some useful guidelines in riskmanagement, the EC report seriously fails totake into account the ethical and societaldimension of risk. These are crucial both indetermining when precautionary principle isinvoked and the action to be taken. The EC viewleans too much to a scientific rationalist riskperspective. However, the ``Green'interpretation of the precautionary principleas a reversal of the burden of proof is alsocriticized as inconsistent both with the natureof technology and with the nature of reality asseen in a Christian perspective. Biblicalinsights on risk reveal a balance ofintervention and conservation in a world whererisk is inherent. The notion of risk as asocial contract reveals that ethical andsocietal issues have a crucial role to play inapplying the precautionary principle.     

Antibiotic Resistance Due to Modern Agricultural Practices: An Ethical Perspective

The use of subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics in food-producing animals has been linked to antibiotic resistant infections in humans. Although this practice has been banned in Europe, the U.S. regulatory authorities have been slow to act. This paper discusses the regulatory hurdles and ethical dilemmas of banning this practice within the context of the risk analysis model (risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication). Specific issues include unethical use of scientific uncertainty during the risk assessment phase, the rejection of the precautionary principle leading to ineffective risk management, and the criticality of risk communication to build consensus and force action. The underlying root cause is a conflict of values (Type I ethical problem) among key stakeholders, which is examined in depth along with an ethical analysis using public health ethical values.     

Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility

Via a historical reconstruction, this paper primarily demonstrates how the societal debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) gradually extended in terms of actors involved and concerns reflected. It is argued that the implementation of recombinant DNA technology out of the laboratory and into civil society entailed a “complex of concerns.” In this complex, distinctions between environmental, agricultural, socio-economic, and ethical issues proved to be blurred. This fueled the confusion between the wider debate on genetic modification and the risk assessment of transgenic crops in the European Union. In this paper, the lasting skeptical and/or ambivalent attitude of Europeans towards agro-food biotechnology is interpreted as signaling an ongoing social request – and even a quest – for an evaluation of biotechnology with Sense and Sensibility. In this (re)quest, a broader-than-scientific dimension is sought for that allows addressing the GMO debate in a more “sensible” way, whilst making “sense” of the different stances taken in it. Here, the restyling of the European regulatory frame on transgenic agro-food products and of science communication models are discussed and taken to be indicative of the (re)quest to move from a merely scientific evaluation and risk-based policy towards a socially more robust evaluation that takes the “non-scientific” concerns at stake in the GMO debate seriously.     

Ranking Genetically Modified Plants According to Familiarity

In public debate GMPs are oftenreferred to as being unnatural or a violationof nature. Some people have serious moralconcerns about departures from what is natural.Others are concerned about potential risks tothe environment arising from the combination ofhereditary material moving across naturalboundaries and the limits of scientificforesight of long-term consequences. To addresssome of these concerns we propose that anadditional element in risk assessment based onthe concept of familiarity should beintroduced. The objective is to facilitatetransparency about uncertainties inherent inthe risk assessment of the GMP. Familiarityconventionally involves data and experiencerelating to the plant species and the ecosystemin question. We would like to extend thisconcept to the molecular level of plantbreeding and suggest that GMP characteristicsshould be compared to a reference baselinedetermined by conventional breeding techniques.Three GMPs are ranked according to familiarityat the plant and ecosystem level and themolecular level. The approach may help tointegrate discussion of the scientificarguments and moral questions raised in thedebate about GMOs by providing an operationalscheme within which moral concerns are broughtwithin the framework of science-based riskassessment.     

Ethical and Value-based Aspects of the European Commission's Precautionary Principle

In February 2000, the EuropeanCommission adopted a Communication on theprecautionary principle. This states how theCommission intends to apply the principle andestablishes guidelines for its application. Thedocument is intended to inform discussions oninternational agreements. In particular, itprovides a defense of European Union (EU)precautionary policies in case of tradedisputes, for example, in case the EU isaccused of imposing unfair trade barriers onexports of genetically-modified (GM) productsfrom the United States under the rules of theWorld Trade Organisation. In the communication,the Commission emphasizes the scientificaspects of the precautionary principle, perhapspartly to counter claims from US officials thatthe EU's reluctance to accept GM imports is notbased on science but is politically-motivated.However, a principle is by definition a moralguide to behavior. In other words, it is anethic. The precautionary principle should beviewed as a complement to science, to beinvoked when a lack of scientific evidencemeans that outcomes are uncertain. Anyinterpretation of this principle needs to placeat least as much emphasis on its ethical andvalue-based aspects as on its scientificjustification. The Commission's interpretationrisks undermining the painstaking progress madeamong European Union member states inresponding to public concern about GM crops andfood by adopting increased precaution. Thispaper explores the balance between thescientific and ethical/value-based aspects ofthe precautionary principle as set out in theCommission's communication, to make the casethat it is the ethical and value-based aspectsrather than the scientific aspects of theguidelines that need strengthening.     

Integrated Risk Framework for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

Onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are becoming increasingly important for the treatment and dispersal of effluent in new urbanised developments that are not serviced by centralised wastewater collection and treatment systems. However, the current standards and guidelines adopted by many local authorities for assessing suitable site and soil conditions for OWTS are increasingly coming under scrutiny due to the public health and environmental impacts caused by poorly performing systems, in particular septic tank-soil adsorption systems. In order to achieve sustainable onsite wastewater treatment with minimal impacts on the environment and public health, more appropriate means of assessment are required. This paper highlights an integrated risk based approach for assessing the inherent hazards associated with OWTS in order to manage and mitigate the environmental and public health risks inherent with onsite wastewater treatment. In developing a sound and cohesive integrated risk framework for OWTS, several key issues must be recognised. These include the inclusion of relevant stakeholders throughout framework development, the integration of scientific knowledge, data and analysis with risk assessment and management ideals, and identification of the appropriate performance goals for successful management and mitigation of associated risks. These issues were addressed in the development of the risk framework to provide a generic approach to assessing risk from OWTS. The utilisation of the developed risk framework for achieving more appropriate assessment and management techniques for OWTS is presented in a case study for the Gold Coast region, Queensland State, Australia.     

Practical Precautionary Resource Management Using Robust Optimization

Uncertainties inherent in fisheries motivate a precautionary approach to management, meaning an approach specifically intended to avoid bad outcomes. Stochastic dynamic optimization models, which have been in the fisheries literature for decades, provide a framework for decision making when uncertain outcomes have known probabilities. However, most such models incorporate population dynamics models for which the parameters are assumed known. In this paper, we apply a robust optimization approach to capture a form of uncertainty nearly universal in fisheries, uncertainty regarding the values of model parameters. Our approach, developed by Nilim and El Ghaoui (Oper Res 53(5):780–798, 2005), establishes bounds on parameter values based on the available data and the degree of precaution that the decision maker chooses. To demonstrate the applicability of the method to fisheries management problems, we use a simple example, the Skeena River sockeye salmon fishery. We show that robust optimization offers a structured and computationally tractable approach to formulating precautionary harvest policies. Moreover, as better information about the resource becomes available, less conservative management is possible without reducing the level of precaution.     

Taking risks with the precautionary principle: food (and the environment) for thought at the European Commission

Various parties relate to the precautionary principle with various understandings, claims and hopes. One of the ways to comprehend this multiplicity of meanings is to examine the composition of this problematic norm in the societal and institutional settings where it occurs. In this paper, I address its elaboration on the European Union institutional terrain with the European Commission's Communication on the Precautionary Principle. This effectuation of the precautionary principle embraces a number of issues of transnational or multilevel governance, expertise, legitimacy and sovereignty. The crucial matter that this paper engages in initially is that of risk analysis, the procedural framework that the precautionary principle confronts with its innovative articulations of science and policy-making, but to which I argue that it succumbs in part. Also explored, in turn, are further framings of the precautionary principle: science versus policy, a given policy domain—environment—in relation to others, as well as action versus inaction (whereas I argue that the precautionary principle ought to be about acting and doubting). These are further evaluated in the conclusions, together with the predicament of establishing a common understanding or defining the precautionary principle. I show that, complementary to drivers of divergence, one finds support for a common approach, though there is no radial symmetry in these tangled stakes, and any ‘diffusion’ of the precautionary principle has to be actively carried out for a shared understanding to be more widely shared. In this process, Europe, the European Commission, its Communication, and the precautionary principle are being shaped into diverse compositions of unity in diversity. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Precaution and the Methodological Status of Scientific (Un)certainty

An effective application of thePrecautionary Principle (PP) hinges on thestipulation that, ``a lack of scientificcertainty shall not be used as a reason forpostponing measures.' The practicalconsequences of this expression are presentlynot clear enough in most contexts of use toenable constructive communication and thereforethe PP is not sufficiently operational now. Apragmatic and fundamental methodology forunderstanding scientific (un)certainty indifferent practical contexts needs to be put inplace to create a communicative basis foreffective precaution. Lack of clarity aboutproblem definition and problem ownershipcreates artificial controversies that willobstruct a precautionary approach. Given thefact that different practical contexts ofscientific (un)certainty exist, it may seemfrom one context as if no precaution iswarranted whereas concerns from anotherrelevant context may suggest otherwise.Therefore, an integrative methodologicalframework for communicating about scientific(un)certainty is sorely needed in internationalpolicy-making. By putting a focus on therelevance of specified research questions forthe objective of taking precaution, acommunicative methodology may be adopted thatis dedicated to the design properties of asustainable future. Precaution cannot beoperationalized without a methodological basisthat allows for effective transparency andevades the stalemates of artificialcontroversy. Existing debate methodologies haveso far not managed to accommodate thesepressing demands.     

The Homiletics of Risk

Today there is considerable disagreement between the US and the EU with respect to food safety standards. Issues include GMOs, beef hormones, unpasteurized cheese, etc. In general, it is usually asserted that Europeans argue for the precautionary principle (with exceptions such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement where ``substantial equivalence,' a form of familiarity, is used) while Americans defend risk analysis or what is sometimes described as the familiarityprinciple. This is not to suggest that EUmember countries agree on how the precautionaryprinciple should be applied; considerabledifferences exist among nations as will benoted below.In this paper I review both positionsarguing that they are best understood asvariants of the homiletics of risk rather thanas differing scientific positions. I concludethat while science must necessarily enter intothe formulation of food and agriculturalstandards, state policy, private economicinterests, and the interface between the two(e.g., when democratic states are successfullylobbied to support particular privateinterests), play important roles in determininghow particular risks will be treated. Moreover,I argue that the role of science mustnecessarily be limited if its credibility is tobe preserved.     

Heterogeneous and unconventional coalitions around global food risks: integrating Brazil into the debates

Current debates about food-borne risks (GMOs and BSE) have not only deepened public concern about how food is produced on farms, processed in factories, and transported, stored and traded. More importantly, these debates have exposed a crisis related to central social issues, such as the role of science, politics and business corporations in the decision-making processes for determining which risks societies should, or are prepared to, assume. In this article, I discuss how cultural and social constructivist studies of environmental and health risks and Ulrich Beck's theory of world risk society can contribute to the analysis of how to deal with these conflicts. The criticism of quantitative methods of risk analysis has resulted in a certain idealization of the lay knowledge of risks as being intuitively more correct than the scientific one. One consequence of this polarization between expert and lay knowledge—idealizing the latter—is a disappointing vagueness when looking for alternatives on how to deal practically with risks that have important consequences. A key obstacle to the implementation of some of the suggestions presented by the critical risk analysis approach is that, for example, in the current global dynamics of food-borne risks we can find heterogeneous alliances for and against GMOs allying lay people and experts, as well as conventional and unconventional social actors, in a complicated manner, at the regional, national and international levels. Since a significant part of the analysis of manufactured risks focuses on the situation of highly industrialized countries, a more complex perspective of these lay and scientific alliances can be obtained from a more extensive study of the reactions surrounding GMOs and BSE in less-industrialized countries, such as Brazil. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Omitted Research in the Context of GMO Use and Release

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.     

风险评价模式在HSE管理中的应用

根据《中印石油管道项目HSE手册》,对项目进行风险模块划分,以盾构施工模块为例,对其施工过程进行模块综合评价,得到系统安全级数为0.7077,处于中等安全与较安全之间,基本满足要求,为项目的安全环保进行提供了科学依据。     

Environmental management systems and sustainable development

The idea of sustainable development was first brought to widespread attention as a global issue; however, it is increasingly being applied at more local levels down to that of individual companies. This raises the potential danger that sustainable development will come to be predominantly identified with the preservation of the organisation involved. A likely outcome is that management decision-making will tip the balance too far in favour of people-centred interests as against environmental interests. An initial step in preventing this is to make any bias in the balance of interests transparent to management. To do this, a model of sustainability is set up in terms that provide a context for the implementation of a quality based environmental management system such as that specified by the International Standard, ISO 14001. In response to inherent uncertainty, a precautionary approach is adopted. The implications of this model for the structuring of critical environmental management system elements are then discussed and a way to generate an indicator of bias proposed. The content of an audit, which would measure the extent to which an organisation has a management system competent to measure and monitor this bias, is also discussed and proposed as another useful indicator.     

Applying the Precautionary Principle in Environmental Assessment: The Case of Reviews in British Columbia

This paper examines the application of the precautionary principle in environmental assessment, specifically using the Salmon Aquaculture Review and the Burns Bog Ecosystem Review in British Columbia as case studies. Lessons are drawn and advice is offered. A conceptual model is presented, framed according to the level of uncertainty regarding impacts and the likelihood of those impacts, as well as the irreversibility of impacts on the environmental system. A distinction is made between management strategies that should either avoid the activities in question or allow for adaptive management and, if implemented effectively, prevent or mitigate adverse effects. Applying the precautionary principle in environmental assessment requires, above all, clear communication and the development of a common understanding of the basis for decisions. The model presented in this paper is suggested as a tool from which a more specific methodological framework can be developed on a case by case basis.     

Sustainable wetland management strategies under uncertainties

Wetlands are widely recognized as transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic systems. They provide multifunctional benefits, most prominently relating to the ecosystem, the economy and to scenic quality. Extensive areas of wetlands have been lost, either as a direct result of redesignation for other uses, especially industrial and recreational, or by qualitative degradation arising from water pollution. Although researchers have been involved in prolonged debate over wetland sustainable use management issues, the uncertain substitutability and irreversibility factors surrounding wetland functions have rarely been addressed. In considering policies for wetland resource management, decision rules and procedures must be adapted to reflect those uncertainties. In this study, the author incorporates the concept of the safe minimum standard of conservation approach to take account of natural and social uncertainties attending public decisions. By this approach, not only is the role of uncertain substitutability and irreversibility prioritized in addressing wetland sustainable use management strategies, but related policy implications may also be considered.