Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
these purposes. Policies for risk governance have regulation as their
main feature, and regulators have relied on scientific and technological
expertise for analytic methods, studies, facts, and informed opinions to
develop rules and other requirements for addressing risks.
Given commercial and other pressures to exploit the benefits of a
new technology despite its uncertainties and risks, the usual governmen-
tal resolution is to allow regulated introduction of the technology into
society on what is essentially an experimental basis, on the assumption
that the risks will be acceptable and that learning gained from actually
using the technology will reduce uncertainties, enable experts to better
clarify its risks, and bring about changes in regulation that will be more
effective in preventing the risks over time.
Yet for some technologies, such as GM agriculture, experimental
introduction and the risks to health and the environment it poses may
also cause disruption of activities essential to societal well-being, such as
conventional agriculture and food production, and attempts to apply the
learning gained from experimentation for corrective purposes may be
futile. In addition, the issue of when such risks and potential disruptions
should be considered acceptable for experimental purposes and borne by
the public clearly calls for more than the quantitative analysis and judg-
ments of technical experts used by regulators, especially in the context
of democratic society in which public values and beliefs are supposed to
be heard and respected.
As the public has become more informed and aware of the impli-
cations of technological advance and the values that influence expert
advice, it has become less willing to entrust decision making to regulators
and technicians and more demanding about its informed involvement in
the regulatory process. As a result, traditional modes of expert-driven
regulation have become less acceptable, and are confronted by demands
to make decision processes more transparent and open to the diversity
of values and views of society.
Experience with GM agriculture and foods reveals the struggle to
develop regulatory approaches that hear, respect, and fairly consider
