Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
information had no effect on the attitude toward GMOs, either posi-
tive or negative, but led both the proponents and opponents to recom-
mend reducing the use of GMOs. Additional research
45
showed that the
perception of high risk was greater among the individuals with greater
“objective” knowledge of the GMO technology and those who recently
discussed biotechnology.
This chapter aims to contribute to clarifying the poorly elaborated
concepts of inclusive societal discourse and public participation. Assum-
ing that discourse and public engagement are indeed good things and
necessary for solving the GMO controversy, the following four proposi-
tions are put forth:
The concept of sustainability offers a helpful framing of the debate
about the multiple controversial aspects of GMOs in food and
agriculture.
The rapidly growing practice of voluntary sustainability reporting by
companies provides a powerful instrument for serving the goal of cre-
ating a discourse that includes the widest possible range of partici-
pants, some of whom have been, until now, kept outside the debate.
A multi-stakeholder discourse so created opens an opportunity
for increasing societal participation in strategic corporate decisions
regarding the research and development (R&D) trajectories for agri-
cultural GMOs,
46
and elevates the idea of social accountability and
social responsibility of GMO producers.
Small-scale experiments with introducing GMO technologies, de-
signed for the purpose of enhancing social learning, or Bounded
Socio-Technical Experiments (BSTEs), are suitable instruments for
enhancing and enriching the societal discourse and for improving
technology assessment.
45
D. Barling et al., The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View, 7
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology
85-93 (1999).
46
Constructive Technology Assessment, Managing Technology in Society: The
Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, (A. Rip et al., eds., Pinter 1995).
