innovations in biotechnology: public perceptions & cultural attitudes drew l. kershen earl sneed...
TRANSCRIPT
Innovations in Biotechnology:
Public Perceptions & Cultural Attitudes
Drew L. Kershen
Earl Sneed Centennial Prof. Univ. of Oklahoma Law School
Copyright 2004, Drew L. Kershen, all rights reserved
Introduction Agricultural Biotechnology – the debate is
not about facts, information, policy compromises
Contending paradigms about humankind, nature, food, science, trade, intellectual property
Galileo/Ptolemy; Darwin/Lysenko; Borlaug/Ho
Agricultural Biotechnology – either accepted and used or stigmatized and shunned
Historical Examples China – Treasure Fleets
1405-1433– Technological superiority
– Voyages of exploration Admiral Zheng He vs
Confucians – power struggle
Stability, purity, precaution – Confucian virtues
Within 8 decades, China gave up its technological superiority to Portugal
1789 United States Constitution – Progress of Science and Useful Arts
1793 Patent Office Stable legal protection for
inventions & discoveries Diamond v. Chakrabarty
(1980); J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. (2001)
Development as Freedom
The Nature of Agricultural Biotechnology
Europe– Different in kind– New laws, regulations
and agencies – the technology itself
Technology assessment – determine the future
European Political leadership – tepid or hostile
United States– No fundamental
difference – No new regulatory issues
– Same laws, agencies – the products of the technology
No a priori determination – the future decides
Political leadership generally supportive – calming
Precautionary Principle or Precautionary Approach
Europe, precautionary principle– Hypothetical or imagined
risks– Risks govern, benefits
ignored– Burden to proof – prove no
risks, no harm Risk – zero tolerance –
pervasive distrust Food purity – pollution,
contamination, segregation – categorical imperative, not risk analysis
US, precautionary approach– Identifiable harms;
scientific evaluation
– Burden to prove safe – non-discrimination
Benefit/Risk Balance – pervasive trust
Food safety – safe, nutritious foods – culinary arts, not the essence of the
food, makes the meal
Food Labels Europe
– Process-based mandatory labelling
– Consumer confidence– Consumer choice
Regulation, not markets Stigma
– Food scares – food ingredient avoidance
– Additional burdens and costs – rent-seeking behaviour
United States– Material facts –
mandatory– Freedom not to speak– Voluntary labels – not
false or misleading Niche Markets
– Differentiate products– Niche consumers pay for
the additional information Consumer choice
– GMO free– Organic production
Atlantic Separation International Fora
International Fora– Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety– Codex Alimentarius– FAO/WHO
Public policy choices– Prohibition – The European reality– Precaution – The European paradigm– Permissive – The Developing World ?– Promotional – The United States paradigm
Going ForwardRisks for Europe
EU Domestic Risk– Bleak Future in a hostile
climate– Industry -- Loss of
competitiveness – Next wave of technology
– Loss of scientific and entrepreneurial expertise
US at no risk – The paradigm does not
govern American production
– The NAFTA markets – dual chains of commodity trade
EU International Risk– Development as
Freedom – food security, demographics, technology transfer
– China & India Technological capacity Large domestic
markets Domestic Public policy
Europe at risk to China & India
The Paradigm Gambit Scientific Ignorance, Ideological
Motives, Moral Risk Historical Choice
– China – 1433– Future Risk – the outcome in several
decades– Science, technology, trade flows equally
from East to West as West to East
References L. Levathes, When China Ruled the Seas: The
Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1994)
A. Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999)
EC, Towards a Strategic Vision of Life Science and Biotechnology: A Consultation Document, COM (2001) 454 Final (04.09.2001)
VIB, Safety of Genetically Engineered Crops (June 5, 2000) < http://www.vib.be >.
References Nat’l Econ. Res. Assoc., Economic
Appraisal of Options for Extension of Legislation on GM Labeling (London, May 2001) < http://www.nera.com >
R. Paarlberg, The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries (John Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001)
UNDP Report 2001, Making New Technologies Work for Human Development (Oxford. Univ. Press, 2001)
References Asian Development Bank, Agricultural
Biotechnology, Poverty Reduction, and Food Security (May 2001)
D. Kershen (1999) Biotechnology: An essay on the academy, cultural attitudes and public policy, AgBioForum 2(2), 137-146 (Spring 1999)
D. Kershen (2000) The Concept of Natural: Implications for Biotechnology Regulation, AgBioForum 3(1), 321-326 (Winter 2000)