Abstract:

Risk governance of GM plants and GM food products is presently subject to heated scientific and public controversies. Scientists and representatives of the biotechnology industry have dominated debates concerning safety issues. The public is suspicious with regard to the motives of scientists, companies, and political institutions involved. The dilemmas posed are nested, embracing value questions, scientific uncertainty, and contextual issues. The obvious lack of data and insufficient information concerning ecological effects call for application of the Precautionary Principle (PP). There are, however, divergent opinions among scientists about the relevance of putative hazards, definition of potential “adverse effects,” and whether actions should be taken to prevent harm. The reliance on the concept of substantial equivalence in safety evaluation of GM food is equally controversial. Consequently, value assumptions embedded in a scientific framework may be a barrier for employment of the PP. One of our major conclusions is that precautionary GMP usage requires risk assessment criteria yet undeveloped, as well as broader and more long-term conceptions of risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. Conflicts of interest and public participation are other issues that need to be taken into consideration. GMP governance regimes that are justifiable from a precautionary and ethical point of view must transcend traditional scientific boundaries to include alternative scientific perspectives as well as public involvement.