Journal or Publishing Institution: International Journal of Biotechnology
Study: https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJBT.2000.000131
Author(s): Levidow, L. and Carr, S.
Article Type: Report
Record ID: 1407
Abstract: In the risk debate over genetically modified (GM) crops, Europe’s regulatory delays have often been branded as "political", i.e. not based on science. Yet the US slogan "sound science" tends to conceal value-laden features of safety claims, their weak scientific basis, their normative framing and their socio-political influences. By contrast a "precautionary approach" can more readily identify scientific unknowns to be investigated, while acknowledging the agricultural-environmental values which inform risk assessment. These issues underlie transatlantic regulatory disputes over insect-protected Bt maize. In both the USA and Europe, public protest has stimulated risk-assessment research on broader cause-effect pathways, as well as more stringent regulation. For harm to non-target insects, however, new evidence of risk has been disparaged as unsound. It has been criticized on various grounds, which could apply just as well to evidence of safety; thus double standards have served to protect safety claims. And non-target harm is deemed acceptable through unsubstantiated comparisons to agrochemical usage. In these ways, "sound science" operates as an ideology, pre-empting debate on the framing of scientific uncertainty. The real choice is not between "science versus politics", but rather between ways of linking them.
Keywords: Arthropods, Bacillus thuringiensis, Insects, Plants, Zea mays; Arthropod Pests, Biosafety, Crops, Genetic Engineering, Genetic Transformation, Genetically Engineered Orgnaisms, Insect Pests, Maize, Nontarget Organisms, Pest Resistance, Pests, Politics, Public Opinion, Regulations, Risk Assessment, Transgenic Plants; Bacterium, Corn, Genetic Manipulation, Genetically Engineered Plants, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetically Modified Plants, GEOs, GMOs, Non-Target Organisms, Non-Target Species, Nontarget Species, Pest Arthropods, Pest Insects, Rules, Transgenic Organisms, United States of America; GM Crop, Science Transatlantic Regulatory Dispute, Safety Claim, Various Ground, Cause-Effect Pathway, New Evidence, Sound Science, Value-Laden Feature, Stringent Regulation, Pre-Empting Debate, Risk Debate, Unsubstantiated Comparison, Transatlantic Regulatory Dispute, Agricultural-Environmental Value, Normative Framing, Science Versus Politics, Scientific Unknown, Precautionary Approach, Socio-Political Influence, Public Protest, Scientific Uncertainty, Real Choice, Risk-Assessment Research, Non-Target Harm, Non-Target Insect, Agrochemical Usage, Regulatory Delay, Weak Scientific Basis, Insect-Protected Bt Maize, U Slogan Sound Science, Risk Assessment, Science-Based Regulation, Environmental Protection, Precautionary Principle, Risk, Biotechnology, Genetically Modified (GM) Crops, Bt Maize, Bt Corn
Citation: Levidow, L. and Carr, S., 2000. Unsound science? Transatlantic regulatory disputes over GM crops. International Journal of Biotechnology, 2(1-3), pp.257-273.
