Performativity in Action: How Risk Communication Interacts in Risk Regulation

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Marijn Poortvliet ◽  
Martijn Duineveld ◽  
Kai Purnhagen
Keyword(s):  
Risk Communication ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
The Gaze ◽  
Gmo Regulation ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Eu

Examples abound of highly politicized instances of risk controversies, such as the climate debate, counterterrorism, and the commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Numerous reasons, such as divergent perspectives, ways of communication, and interests, explain why involved actors often find themselves locked in a controversy.For instance, in the GMO debates environmental politicians, NGOs, industrial parties, consumers, and GMO scientists have exerted very distinct ways of communication, resulting in a highly polarized and contested gene-risk landscape. As a consequence, some industrial players have left or terminated R&D activities in the EU, while other scientists escape the gaze of EU-regulations and started experimenting in places with a different approach to GMO regulation and control.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Maria Weimer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Risk Society ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Exit Options ◽  
The Eu

This book examines the legal and political context of European Union regulation of agricultural biotechnology, using the case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as a classic example of the challenges and convoluted problems that public regulators in general, and EU regulators in particular, face when confronted with technological risks in a globalized risk society. Focusing on the GMO reform of 2015, the book explores possible ways forward in EU risk regulation, their legitimacy, effectiveness, and their very legality under the current framework of EU internal market law. It discusses the evolution and challenges of EU risk regulation in the internal market, the administration of GMO risks, the EU legal framework for GMO authorization and its implementation in practice, and exit options from EU harmonized rules, including the 2015 opt-out reform of GMO legislation.

scholarly journals GMO Genetic Elements Thesaurus (GMO-GET): a controlled vocabulary for the consensus designation of introduced or modified genetic elements in genetically modified organisms

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulien Adamse ◽  
Emilie Dagand ◽  
Karen Bohmert-Tatarev ◽  
Daniela Wahler ◽  
Manoela Miranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Controlled Vocabulary ◽  
Data Systems ◽  
Genetic Elements ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Detection And Identification ◽  
Unique Approach ◽  
The Subject ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background Various databases on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) exist, all with their specific focus to facilitate access to information needed for, e. g., the assistance in risk assessment, the development of detection and identification strategies or inspection and control activities. Each database has its unique approach towards the subject. Often these databases use different terminology to describe the GMOs. For adequate GMO addressing and identification and exchange of GMO-related information it is necessary to use commonly agreed upon concepts and terminology. Result A hierarchically structured controlled vocabulary describing the genetic elements inserted into conventional GMOs, and GMOs developed by the use of gen(om)e-editing is presented: the GMO genetic element thesaurus (GMO-GET). GMO-GET can be used for GMO-related documentation, including GMO-related databases. It has initially been developed on the basis of two GMO databases, i.e. the Biosafety Clearing-House and the EUginius database. Conclusion The use of GMO-GET will enable consistent and compatible information (harmonisation), also allowing an accurate exchange of information between the different data systems and thereby facilitating their interoperability. GMO-GET can also be used to describe genetic elements that are altered in organisms obtained through current targeted genome-editing techniques.

GMO Reform—The Internal Market as a Site of Diversity

2019 ◽  
pp. 180-224
Author(s):  
Maria Weimer
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Regulatory Reform ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Site ◽  
Gmo Cultivation

This chapter examines the legal and policy changes brought about by the 2015 reform of the regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It considers the extent to which Directive 2015/412, introduced to make the 2015 regulatory reform possible and to allow for national opt-outs from GMO cultivation, helps overcome the legitimacy problems of EU risk regulation. The chapter first analyses the new EU approach to GMO cultivation via Directive 2015/412 before discussing the scope of EU harmonization in the field of GMO regulation after the adoption of this Directive. It then explains the constitutional limits of Article 114 TFEU in granting Member States the right to restrict GMO cultivation and concludes by assessing the implications of the 2015 reform for free movement of GMO products as well as highlighting the reform’s shortcomings.

scholarly journals THE EUROPEAN UNION, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs)

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
Anisa ◽  
Chelsilya ◽  
Grace Yohana ◽  
Mucco Eva ◽  
Morry Zefanya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Eu

Current technological advances have been present in all aspects of human life, including technological advances in biotechnology. Biotechnology not only raises hope for science but also raises heated debates among scientists, especially between the European Union and the US. This debate arises because of differences in perspective between the EU and the US. The EU has stringent rules regarding the development efforts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). At the same time, the US thinks that GMOs are part of agriculture, so there is no need for any special laws to regulate them. Various side effects also come hand in hand with the birth of GMOs. They are ranging from adverse effects on human health, the health of food products, and even environmental damage. The development of GMOs can damage the ecosystem of species that exist in the environment. Still, more complex problems arise due to GMOs like economic problems and monopolies.   Keywords: The  GMOs, The EU, The US.

scholarly journals The genetically modified organism shall not be refused? Talking back to the technosciences

2021 ◽  
pp. 251484862110423
Author(s):  
Barbara Van Dyck ◽  
Anneleen Kenis ◽  
Andy Stirling
Keyword(s):  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Theoretical Work ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Genetically Modified Organism ◽  
Research Technology ◽  
Biotechnology Research ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Grassroots Initiatives ◽  
And Control

Starting from Marcel Mauss’ observation that “one has no right to refuse a gift”, this paper explores the politics of refusal in the context of field trials with genetically modified organisms in Flanders (Belgium). Based on a decade of activist research, and focusing on the genetically modified organism field trials of the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology, we show that the business model of this strategic research center – with its triple mission of carrying biotechnology research, technology transfer, and the promotion of biotechnology through communication and lobby activities – fosters a climate in which innovations in the technosciences have to “be accepted”. The future is laid out without including the possibility of refusal. Consternation is great when this is exactly what happens. Irrational fears and lack of understanding or lack of familiarity are invoked to explain refusal. Language of precision, innovation, safety, and control are deployed to re-assure the public. Refusal is not considered a legitimate option. Yet, if farmers and grassroots initiatives would accept the gift of genetically modified organisms, it would mean the acceptance of their dispossession and the impossibility of diverse food sovereignties. Starting from theoretical work on “the gift” and “the politics of refusal”, we argue that recognizing innovation as the intrinsically plural and divergent process it is, entails including options to refuse particular pathways as a first step to open up others. As we will argue, saying no to genetically modified organisms is part of saying yes to peasant autonomy, agrobiodiversity, and peoples’ food sovereignties.

scholarly journals Characterization of Genetically Modified Maize in Weakly Contaminated Seed Batches and Identification of the Origin of the Adventitious Contamination

2007 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 1098-1106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laetitia Petit ◽  
Galle Pagny ◽  
Fabienne Baraige ◽  
Anne-Ccile Nignol ◽  
David Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ssr Markers ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Maize Seeds ◽  
Genetic Modifications ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

Abstract So far, relatively few genetically modified plants (GMPs) have been planted in the European Union (EU). However, in France, seed batches weakly contaminated by unidentified GM materials have recently been detected among commercial maize seeds (14 seed batches positive out of 447 analyzed). We have developed a 3-step approach to precisely identify the genetic modifications detected in such maize seed batches. First, to isolate GMPs derived from the contaminated seed batches, 10 000 maize seeds of each batch were planted and screened by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on 100-plant batches, then on 10-plant subbatches, and finally, plant by plant. In a second step, specific identification of the individual GMPs was performed. Finally, to determine the origin of the contamination, each individual GMP was analyzed by simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. The results showed that all batches were contaminated by few GM seeds, having a GM content <0.1%. Finally, 12 individual GMPs have been isolated from 17 plant pools that were tested positive either for P35-S and/or T-Nos. MON810 and T25 transformation events approved for cultivation in the EU were detected in 7 individual GMPs. The other seed batches were contaminated by genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are not approved in the EU, including GA21 or the stacking MON810/T25. Presumable identification of T14 was also achieved following sequencing of 1 individual GMP. The data also showed that most of the seed batches were contaminated by several transformation events. Finally, analysis of SSR markers indicated that the contaminations were essentially due to cross-pollination in the seed production process.

scholarly journals Comparing international approaches to food safety regulation of GM and Novel Foods

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Crop Production ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Significant Degree ◽  
Human Consumption ◽  
Gm Crop ◽  
Novel Foods ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
The Eu

The global area of genetically modified (GM) crop production has considerably increased over the past two decades, with GM crops now cultivated in about 28 countries, accounting for over 10% of the world’s arable land. A 'novel food' is any food or substance that has not been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the EU before 15 May 1997. Since then, there has been over 90 novel foods authorisations approved for use by the EU. Novel foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are subject to a large variation in regulatory approaches around the world, for which many countries have specifically developed their own regulatory frameworks to control the placement of such products on their markets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document