THE US-EU GM CROPS CONTROVERSY

A CASE FOR EPISTEMIC SUBSIDIARITY?SHEILA JASANOFFHARVARD UNIVERSITYCENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH, NEW DELHI, AUGUST 7, 2015

THE FRAMEWORK

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 2

OUTLINE

1. Paradoxes of risk governance

2. Imaginaries of order

3. Challenge and (non) learning

4. Ways forward – theoretical / practical

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 3

RISK BY COMPARISONFirst generation of comparative studies (1980s)

Revealed significant cross-national differences in the regulation of technological risks But did not analyze how political structures relate to strategies of control and governance

Second generation of comparative studies (2000s) Attempted to open up both epistemic and political black boxes, showing internal histories

and dynamics Focused on micro-practices and discourses at sites of technoscientific activity, including

regulatory sciences

Emerging Problems Privatization, loss of trust, diffusion of responsibility Ethics and politics of innovation Differences in reception (as well as in regulation)

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 4

US-EU DEBATE ON GMOS

Europe was less risk averse on chemicals and cancer in 1970s, but has been more risk averse on GMOs. Why?

Some standard explanations:• Europeans are “behind”; never had debates of the 1970s.• It was “mad cow” disease.• It’s European protectionism.• It’s public ignorance of science.• It’s the media; scientists should learn to communicate.

How do we explain different frames of governance?

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 5

SOCIOTECHNICAL IMAGINARIESNew descriptive questions

What accounts for differences in national/transnational innovation trajectories? What accounts for differences in “public understanding” of innovation?

New normative questions Uncover taken-for-granted assumptions that constrain democratic engagement in

imagining the public benefits of S&T Make visible alternate imaginative possibilities Improve institutional designs for public engagement

National Sociotechnical Imaginaries“Collectively imagined and communicated forms of social life that both embed and are

embodied in national scientific and/or technological projects”

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 6

US IMAGINARIES: A FOCUS ON CONTROLLING RISK

US Nuclear US GMOs

Framing RisksRunaway accidents; catastrophic damage

Escape from lab control

StakesGovernance of physical hazards

Governance of risks to health

Policy FocusProviding power, controlling radiation

Integrated plant-pesticide package; biophysical control

ControversiesIncomplete expert risk assessments

Animal welfare; organics

ClosuresCourt cases; nationalization of risk

GM denialism

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 7

US: CONTAINMENT THROUGH EXPERT DISCOURSES

Objective policy discourses are used to legitimate regulation.

Expert discourses define boundaries between allowable and not allowable.

These discourses include:• Risk assessment (often quantitative)• Law (intellectual property, regulatory laws)• Economics (cost-benefit analysis)• Bioethics (extension to new domains)

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 8

THE ASILOMAR MOMENT

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 9

RATIFICATION OF CONTAINMENT

The Asilomar settlement

• Physical containment (P1-P4)• Biological containment (weakened strains)

Impermissible experiments

• Field release of GM cropsAttempted release without NEPA compliance

• Required to “retrofit” environmental assessment• Incredulity of scientists

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 10

A TECHNIQUE OF SPECIFIC MANIPULATIONS

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 11

THE PRODUCT FRAMEWORK

•It’s not genetic engineering per se; it’s the products of genetic engineering that should concern us.•There are already institutions, processes, and analytic frameworks in place for considering risks of products.•Therefore there is no need for big policy innovations. •New institutions and expert forums will be created if and as need arises (e.g., for bioethics).

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 12

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 13

LEARNING 1: SCIENCE•Not just a matter of molecular biology•Ecological concerns

–Gene flow (Chapela and Mexican maize)–Antibiotic resistance and resistant species–Effects on non-target species (Losey and monarch butterfly larvae)

–“Escape” and cross-contamination (Monsanto v. Schmeiser)–Monoculture risks (Shiva)–Economics of biofuels versus food production

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 14

LEARNING 2: TECHNOLOGY

Contradictions in existing regulatory frameworks: product vs. process debate

“Unknown unknowns” in scale-up from lab to field to farm-scale to global applications

Imperfections of managerial predictions: faulty “segregation” (e.g., separate regimes for feed and food)

Market domination and path dependency vs. innovation

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 15

LEARNING 3: SOCIETY

•Inadequate assessment of benefits to consumers

–EU opposition to US products•Lack of demand

–Flavr-Savr tomato•Inadequate attention to social and cultural concerns

–GM bovine growth hormone•Lack of transparency

–Labeling controversies•Public perceptions of irresponsibility

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 16

“GM DENIALISM”

Losey and monarch butterfly• Not a good model

Chapela and GM maize• Not good science

StarLink and Taco Bell• Regulatory failure

Prodigene• Bad agricultural practices

Percy Schmeiser and Roundup-ready canola• Patent infringement

GM golf-course grass (Agrostis stolonifera)• No known harm to environment

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 17

PROTESTING “FRANKENFOODS”

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 18

“TECH TRANSFER”: A FAILURE OF CONTAINMENT

Prince Charles Asks•Do we need GM food in this country?• Is GM food safe for us to eat?•Why are the rules for approving GM foods so much less stringent than those for new medicines produced using the same technology?

• Nos. 1-3 of 10 Questions asked by the Prince of Wales

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 19

“NORMAL EXPERIMENTS”

•Professor Derek Burke Answers–The answer is clear: the rules are not less stringent, they are different and the same as used elsewhere in the world. Drugs are tested on animals at hundreds of times their clinical doses; that is not possible with food, so different ways have been devised. But if you really want to start trials in humans, 300 million Americans have been eating GM soya for several years now without any ill effects.

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 20

WTO GMO CASE: A PRIVATE INTERVENTION

•The “academics brief”•EU:US differences reflect different circumstances, values and institutional frameworks – both equally valid in SPS terms.•Substantive importance of public involvement for determining risk parameters.•Hence need to question basis for claim of EU “undue delay”•WTO role should be as procedural reviewer, rather than arbiter on merits of risk assessment

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 21

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Incorporate relevant recent scholarship, including social sciences.Recognize necessary limitations of science.Respect public deliberation and cultural context.Reject “undue delay” claim.Adopt appropriate role – procedural review, rather than substantive evaluation.

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 22

THE CASE FOR EPISTEMIC SUBSIDIARITY

Differences that should not have been…

Nations (and supranational agencies) regulate risks differently even though they:

• Are acting on the basis of the same scientific knowledge• Are equally committed to protecting public health and safety• Value and have adopted democratic processes• Seek to advance national welfare through scientific and

technological progress

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 23

POLITICS OF COEXISTENCE IN EUROPE

•Cross-national differences in imaginaries–UK case: a new democratization

• GM Nation?• Politics of public engagement

–German case: challenges to rule of law• Strong organic sensibilities• Historical skepticism toward state• Insulation of expert judgment

–Austrian case: a new exclusionism• Strong organics market• Just say no culture of technology importation

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 24

BOUNDARY BREAKDOWNS

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 25

CONTAINMENT AND COEXISTENCE

Both are containment regimes

But underpinned by different political imaginaries of participation, expertise, and the public good

Neither can maintain its boundaries against irruptions (of organisms, of actors, of politics)

What then is the way forward from these two experiments in governance?

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 26

NEW IMAGINARIES OF GMO GOVERNANCE

•What do we want (from the technology)?

•Who decides?

•What do we want to protect?

•Who participates (when, how, by what means)?

8/7/15

CPR - GMO 27