5.1.1 A Short Historical Reconstruction
Devos et al. describe, in a brief historical reconstruction, how public debates regard- ing agricultural biotechnologies gradually extend the scope of actors involved and issues addressed. Their historical reconstruction illustrates, at the same time that the issues arising relate to the changing ways in which agro-biotechnological research is embedded in societal contexts. Agro-biotechnology research evolves from lab- oratory science to commercially interesting research toward spearheading national economic and innovation policies. In this section, we will summarize the described evolutions in public debates with regard to GM (genetically modified) crops.
Initially, in the early 1970s, scientists themselves addressed the safety of labora- tory workers performing r-DNA research and of the community living in the close neighborhood of molecular biology laboratories. In the USA, a voluntary morato- rium on certain types of experiments was even proposed as long as the hazards could not be properly evaluated or prevented. This call for a moratorium induced the first public debates on the r-DNA technique and its applications.
From the beginning, the community of scientists working in the domain of biotechnology was not very eager to share its safety considerations with the pub- lic. They feared that involvement of members of the wider public would block scientific research. Nevertheless, the Asilomar II conference (February 1975), intended to discuss appropriate and concrete ways to deal with safety issues of the r-DNA technique, was attended by lawyers, members of the press and govern- ment officials as well as scientists. Inclusion of these new actors was a reaction to criticisms on the exclusion of the public. The Asilomar II recommendations led to “Guidelines for Research Involving r-DNA Molecules.” These guidelines allowed for the abandonment of the voluntary moratorium and helped to convince US Congress that legislative restrictions were not needed. At the same time, they prohibited large-scale field-testing.
From 1976 onwards, the r-DNA domain evolved from predominantly academic and fundamental research mainly financed by government to applied techno-science largely co-financed by private capital. In this period, patenting of inventions related to the r-DNA technique became an issue. With the adoption of the Bayh-Dole Act (1980), universities, companies and nonprofit organizations obtained the right to hold patents on innovations arising from federally funded research. This aug- mented the commercial attractiveness of biotechnology. Moreover and in order to maintain leadership in biotechnology, the use of transgenic organisms started to be deregulated. The safety issue was downplayed in favor of industrial expansion.
From 1981 onwards, biotechnology became an important vehicle for economic competition on a national and global scale. Commercial interest in biotechnology extended: not only pharmaceutical multinationals, but also chemical-seed, oil, and agro-food multinationals invested – via the acquisition of biotechnology compa- nies or the funding of fundamental research at universities – in R&D activities in this domain. Various governments established programs to stimulate the industrial development of biotechnology.
Together with a growing commercial exploitation of the technological possibil- ities of genetic engineering a wider variety of social issues, next to the safety of laboratory workers and of their neighborhoods, arose in public debates. The first deliberate releases of transgenic organisms into the environment in the 1980s gener- ated more focused discussions regarding potential environmental risks. Conflicting positions surfaced with regard to the kinds of harm to take into consideration, the appropriate baseline of comparison to assess the severity and acceptability of risk, the reliability of scientific evidence, and suitable means to manage risks. The fact that knowledge became a commodity for private profit raised a range of ques- tions: about the ethical accountability of patenting natural parts of life forms, about the potential adverse impacts on the accessibility of new developments for sci- entists and consumers, about the hybridization between fundamental and applied research, about the confidentiality of scientific results, about the moral positions and values of science and researchers, about the credibility and autonomy of sci- entists, and about the role of government. Sustainability and globalization aspects also entered the debate. The relation between intensive farming – of which GM agro-technology is still a further step – and biodiversity was, for instance, ques- tioned and, therefore, protection or promotion of organic and integrated farming was called for. Moreover, increased alignment of universities with the private sec- tor, a general decrease in crop diversity, and the dominance of the private sector in research, development and commercialization of transgenic crops was consid- ered to cause that the worldwide growing area of GM crops only covered a few crops with a limited variety of engineered traits. Public debate also focused on food quality issues such as the maintenance of farmers’ craftsman expertise, of cultural identity and diversity. Concentration of biotechnology companies, undermining of less-intensive farming methods and of high-quality food products, greater farmer dependence on biotechnology companies, and limited opportunities for academic and governmental research institutions and small biotechnology companies – com- pared to multinational companies – to commercialize transgenic crops are some of the socio-economic issues being discussed.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, regional and local governments and municipalities and farmers in the EU forged coalitions and installed a net- work of regions free from GM crops. By this action, they succeeded in defending a model of sustainable rural development against the dominant agro-industrial model. This action urged the EU and national and regional authorities to develop legal co- existence frames. This appears to be an extremely difficult task, as champions and adversaries continue to debate the feasibility of co-existence. Devos et al. conclude that “previously unsolved conflicts over GM crops condensed onto co-existence, which became another arena for contentious values and ideals.”
To conclude, in the public debate on agricultural biotechnologies a wide variety of issues matter: next to safety issues, it regards the usefulness of GM crops and the validity of the motives underlying their development, socio-economic impacts of their commercialization, freedom of choice, unnaturalness of genetic modification, respect for nature, irreversibility of adverse effects, democracy, disparities between the industrialized world and the third world, uncertainties with regard to possible risks, fallibility of experts, sustainability effects of agricultural models. The short
historical overview illustrates, moreover, that at least some of the issues in the public debate result from specific characteristics in the societal context itself.
5.1.2 An Inadequate European Regulatory Response
In response to societal concerns regarding the harmfulness and scientific uncer- tainties surrounding GM agro-food products, the EU regulatory framework was gradually restyled. GM agro-food products were subjected to a risk analysis prior to their use. The precautionary principle was explicitly adopted in legislation regard- ing authorization procedures for deliberate releases of GM agro-food products. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was created to provide “indepen- dent scientific advice and clear communication on existing and emerging risks” (www.efsa.europa.eu). Products consisting of, containing or being produced from a genetically modified organism (GMO) were charged to be labeled thus; the trace- ability of food chains was imposed; a legal framework for co-existence started to be commissioned; and measures to inform the public were installed. Other than risk issues – general ethical issues that were explicitly labeled thus – were channeled to a European ethics committee (European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies,http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/) or to National Ethics Committees. Many ethical issues remained, however, unanswered on a pub- lic level and were banished to the private sphere, where individuals can only decide as consumers whether or not to buy particular GM agro-food products.
The restyling of the EU regulatory framework does, until now, not suffice to allay the European public’s reservations towards agro-food biotechnology. The Eurobarometer study on biotechnology concludes that “one area where public trust is still lacking is green biotechnology which includes using genet- ically modified organisms (GMOs) in foodstuffs” (http://ec.europa.eu/research/ biosociety/public_understanding/eurobarometer_en.htm, consulted February 1, 2008). A majority of Europeans (58%) believe that the development of GM foods should not be encouraged. GM food is seen by them as not being useful, as morally unacceptable and as a risk for society. The authors of this Eurobarometer report argue that, to build further confidence in science policy, “it would seem prudent to ensure that moral and ethical considerations and the public voice(s) are seen to inform discussions and decisions.”