The commercialization of transgenic crops has engendered significant resistance from environmental groups and defensive responses from industry. A part of this struggle entails the politicization of science as groups gather evidence from the scholarly literature to defend a supportive or opposing position to transgenic crop commercialization. The authors argue that novel technology development and associated scientific uncertainty have led to two competing approaches to risk management: precaution and ex post trial and error. In this paper we use the controversies over currently commercialized transgenic crops to analyze the debate over these competing approaches. We also suggest a hybrid approach that incorporates a precautionary selection process, but also relies on ex post trial and error after commercialization. This approach is labeled precaution through experience since the development of a technology’s characteristics would ideally take into account previous experience with similar technologies, or rather technologies with similar applications. The authors argue that substantial public participation and dialogue is needed to identify socially desirable crop traits to guide research and development. Policy tools are also recommended that provide incentives to private-sector firms to engineer the identified traits into crops.
Beck, U.1992a. From industrial society to the risk society: Questions of survival, social structure and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture and Society9:97-123.
2.
Beck, U.1992b. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Beck, U.1999. World risk society. Malden, MA: Polity.
4.
Carpentier, C. L., and D. Ervin. 2002. The United States in public concerns, environmental standards and agricultural trade, ed. F. Brouwer and D. Ervin. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
5.
Cochrane, W.1993. The development of American agriculture: A historical analysis. 2nd ed.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
6.
Costanza, R., and C. Perrings. 1990. A flexible assurance bonding system for improved environmental management. Ecological Economics2:57-75.
7.
Durkheim, E.1995. The elementary forms of the religious life. New York: Free Press.
8.
Eden Bioscience. 2003. Messenger technical bulletin. http://www.edenbio.com/usa/agriproducts/documents/mess_sts/techbul_EU-english.pdf (accessed January 11, 2006).
9.
Ervin, D., S. Batie, C. L. Carpentier, and R. Welsh. 2002. Transgenic crops and the environment: The economics of precaution. Working paper. Portland, OR: Environmental Sciences and Resources, Portland State University.
10.
Ervin, D., S. Batie, R. Welsh, C. L. Carpentier, J. I. Fern, N. J. Richman, and M. A. Schulz. 2001. Transgenic crops: An environmental assessment. Policy Studies Report No. 15. Arlington, VA: Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy at Winrock International. Available at http://www.winrock.org/Transgenic.pdf.
11.
Ervin, D., and A. Schmitz. 1996. A new era of environmental management in agriculture?American Journal of Agricultural Economics78:1198-1206.
12.
Ervin, D., and R. Welsh. 2005. Environmental effects of genetically modified crops: A differentiated risk assessment model. In Environmental costs and benefits of transgenic crops, ed. J. H. H. Wesseler. Norwell, MA: Springer.
13.
Ervin, D., R. Welsh, S. Batie, and C. L. Carpentier. 2003. Towards an ecological systems approach in public research for environmental regulation of transgenic crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems-Environment99:1-14.
14.
Giddens, A.2000. Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. New York: Routledge.
15.
Gould, F.1997. The evolutionary potential of crop pests. In Exploring ecology and its application: Readings from American Scientist, ed. P. Kavreiva, 206-217. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
16.
Hails, R.2000. Genetically modified plants: The debate continues. Trends in Ecology and Evolution15:14-18.
17.
Hayami, Y., and V. Ruttan. 1985. Agricultural development: An international perspective. Rev. ed.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
18.
Hood, C., and D. K. C. Jones, eds. 2002. Accident and design: Contemporary debates in risk management. London: Routledge.
19.
Hubbell, B., and R. Welsh. 1998. Transgenic crops: Engineering a more sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values15:43-56.
20.
James, C.2003. Global status of commercialized transgenic crops: 2003. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
21.
Jasanoff, S.1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Jasanoff, S.2000. The science wars and American politics. In Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology, ed. M. Dierkes and C. von Grote, 39-60. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Harwood Academic.
23.
Jasanoff, S.2003. A living legacy: The precautionary ideal in American law. In Environmental science and preventive public policy, ed. J. Tickner, 227-240. Washington, DC: Island Press.
24.
Jelsma, J.1995. Learning about learning in the development of biotechnology. In Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment, ed. A. Rip, T. J. Misa, and J. Schot, 141-166. London: Pinter.
25.
Kleinman, D.1998. Beyond the science wars: Contemplating the democratization of science. Science and Democracy16:133-145.
26.
Kriebel, D., J. Tickner, P. Epstein, J. Lemons, R. Levins, E. L. Loechler, M. Quinn, R. Rudel, T. Schettler, and M. Stoto. 2001. The Precautionary Principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives109:871-876.
27.
Lacy, W.2000a. Agricultural biotechnology, socioeconomic issues and the fourth criterion. In Encyclopedia of ethical, legal and policy issues in biotechnology, ed. T. J. Murray and M. J. Mehlman, 77-89. New York: John Wiley-Sons.
28.
Lacy, W.2000b. Empowering communities through public work, science, and local food systems: Revisiting democracy and globalization. Rural Sociology65:3-26.
29.
Leiss, W., and C. Chociolka. 1994. Risk and responsibility. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.
30.
Lemons, J., K. Shrader-Frechette, and C. Cranor, 1997. The Precautionary Principle: Scientific uncertainty and Type I and Type II errors. Foundations of Science2:207-236.
31.
Lubchenco, J.1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science279:491-497.
32.
Miller, H. I., and G. Conko. 2001. Precaution without principle. Nature Biotechnology19:302-303.
33.
National Agricultural Biotechnology Council. n.d. Web site. http://www.nabc.cals.cornell.edu/ (accessed January 11, 2006).
34.
National Research Council. 2000. Genetically modified pest-protected plants: Science and regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
National Research Council. 2002. Environmental effects of transgenic plants: The scope and adequacy of regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36.
Nielsen, K., 2003. Transgenic organisms: Time for conceptual diversification?Nature Biotechnology21:227-228.
37.
Nelkin, D.1995a. Forms of intrusion: Comparing resistance to information technology and biotechnology in the USA. In Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology, ed. M. Bauer, 379-392. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Nelkin, D.1995b. Science controversies: The dynamics of public disputes in the United States. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 444-456. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
Ollinger, M., and J. Fernandez-Cornejo. 1995. Regulation, innovation and market structure in the U.S. pesticide industry. AER-719. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
40.
Palumbi, S. R.2001. Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science293:1786-1790.
41.
Pedigo, L.2002. Entomology and pest management. 4th ed.New York: Prentice Hall.
42.
Putnam, R. D.1995. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy6:65.
43.
Putnam, R. D.2001. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone Books.
44.
Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner. 1999. Protecting public health and the environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.
45.
Royal Society of Canada. 2001. Elements of precaution: Recommendations for regulation of food biotechnology in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Royal Society.
46.
Sheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature413:591-596.
47.
Tickner, J.2003. Conclusion: precaution, environmental science and preventive public policy. In Environmental science and preventive public policy, ed. J. Tickner, 371-376. Washington, DC: Island Press.
48.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004. Prospective plantings. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bbp/pspl0304.txt (accessed February 13, 2005).
49.
Wei, Z. M., R. J. Laby, C. H. Zumoff, D. W. Bauer, S. Y. He, A. Collmer, and S. V. Beer. 1992. Harpin elicitor of the hypersensitive response produced by the plant pathogen Erwinia amylovora. Science257:85-88.
50.
Welsh, R., B. Hubbell, D. Ervin, and M. Jahn. 2002. GM crops and the pesticide paradigm. Nature Biotechnology20:548-549.
51.
Wildavsky, A.2000. Trial and error versus trial without error. In Rethinking risk and the Precautionary Principle, ed. J. Morris, 22-45. Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
52.
Wolfenbarger, L. L., and P. R. Phifer. 2000. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science290:2088-2093.
53.
Yearley, S.1995. The environmental challenge to science studies. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 457-479. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
Youngberg, I .G.1994. Setting the agricultural biotechnology agenda: Moving beyond dialogue. In Agricultural biotechnology and the public good, 147-150. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
