ArticlePDF Available

A stakeholder engagement approach for identifying future research directions in the evaluation of current and emerging applications of GMOs

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The yield of several commodity crops is provided in large part by genetically modified crops in North and South America. However, reservations exist in Europe due to possible negative effects on human health or environment. This paper aims to analyse the current research priorities identified in EU countries and to engage European stakeholders into the formulation of future common research needs regarding the effects of the possible adoption of commercially available and forthcoming genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the areas of socio-economics, human and animal health, and environment. Additionally, it aims to identify the requirements for sharing available research capacities and existing infrastructures. First a mapping exercise of existing research activities in Europe was performed. A questionnaire was developed on a web-based platform and submitted to national focal points to collect information from EU Member States. Information was collected from 320 research projects conducted in the last 10 years in Europe. To refine results of the surveys, twenty invited experts and stake-holders from the public funding agencies of different EU Member States participated in an international workshop. This paper reports the main findings of these activities.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bio-based and Applied Economics 6(1): 57-79, 2017
ISSN 2280-6180 (print) © Firenze University Press
ISSN 2280-6172 (online) www.fupress.com/bae
Full Research Article
DOI: 10.13128/BAE-18535
A stakeholder engagement approach for identifying
future research directions in the evaluation of current and
emerging applications of GMOs
DaviDe Menozzi1*, Kaloyan Kostov2, Giovanni soGari1, salvatore arpaia3, Daniela MoyanKova2,
Cristina Mora1
1 Department of Food and Drug, University of Parma, Parma 43125, Italy
2 ABI – Agrobioinstitute, Soa 1164, Bulgaria
3 ENEA – National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Rotondella
(MT) 75026, Italy
Date of submission: 2016 30th, June; accepted 2017 3rd, February
Abstract. e yield of several commodity crops is provided in large part by genetically
modied crops in North and South America. However, reservations exist in Europe due
to possible negative eects on human health or environment. is paper aims to ana-
lyse the current research priorities identied in EU countries and to engage European
stakeholders into the formulation of future common research needs regarding the eects
of the possible adoption of commercially available and forthcoming genetically modi-
ed organisms (GMOs) in the areas of socio-economics, human and animal health,
and environment. Additionally, it aims to identify the requirements for sharing avail-
able research capacities and existing infrastructures. First a mapping exercise of existing
research activities in Europe was performed. A questionnaire was developed on a web-
based platform and submitted to national focal points to collect information from EU
Member States. Information was collected from 320 research projects conducted in the
last 10 years in Europe. To rene results of the surveys, twenty invited experts and stake-
holders from the public funding agencies of dierent EU Member States participated in
an international workshop. is paper reports the main ndings of these activities.
Keywords. Genetically modied organisms (GMOs), socio-economic, human and
animal health, environment, workshop
JEL codes. Q16, Q55, O30
1. Introduction
Scientic and technological progress in agriculture has resulted in innovations that
have contributed to increase production and productivity. Genetically modied (GM)
*Corresponding author: davide.menozzi@unipr.it
58 D. Menozzi
crops have shown an extremely rapid adoption rate in many areas of the world. About 12
percent (179.7 million of 1.5 billion hectares) of global cropland was invested with GM
crops in 2015 (James, 2015). Maize area summed up to 53.7 million hectares in 2015 and
GM soybean was cultivated over 92 million hectares during the same cropping season.
Herbicide tolerance (HT) crops occupy 100 million ha, insect resistant (IR) 26 million ha
and crops expressing stacked HT and IR traits were planted on 45 million ha. However
at the same time, in dierent world areas genetically modied organisms (GMOs) have
experienced a transnational opposition from dierent interests groups (Herring, 2008).
Opposition to transgenic crops has oen argued the lack of sucient scientic data dem-
onstrating that GM crops are harmless to humans and to the environment (Rausser et al.,
2015; Yang and Chen, 2016). Although these uncertainties about food and feed products
derived from plant breeding is not conned to transgenic plants (Herring, 2008) and that,
beyond transgenic plants, alternative methods are being applied to obtain new crop varie-
ties (Parisi et al., 2016), GMOs are oen questioned in regards of the uncertainty of their
possible risks. Schurman and Munro (2010) describe how these concerns gained consen-
sus in a network of stakeholders, including consumer, environmental, and social-justice
organizations. e European Union has endorsed the precautionary principle and there-
fore in its risk assessment a central role is sought in addressing and dealing with these
uncertainties. e EU regulations on GMOs constitute a salient issue of risk governance
given the politically high visibility of the topic (Drott et al., 2013). e EU regulatory
framework on GMOs includes rules on authorization conditions, traceability, labelling,
segregation, co-existence, which are established by the European Commission based on
the risk assessment procedures conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
which provides independent scientic advice on this topic (Drott et al., 2013). According-
ly, scientic research promoted by the European Commission so far has also been framed
considering the (potential) positive and negative eects of GMOs.
Despite the global opposition, transgenic crops have spread rapidly in the agribusi-
ness, and the number of GM events at the commercial cultivation, precommercial or reg-
ulatory stages has more than doubled between 2008 and 2014 (Parisi et al., 2016). e
uneven adoption rate of GM crops is still evident. US continues to be the lead country
with 70.9 million hectares (ca 40% of global) with about 90% adoption for the principal
crops: maize, soybean and cotton (James, 2015). While GM plants currently available fea-
ture a limited set of dierent traits, there are several crops with novel traits in the regu-
latory pipeline and at late stages of research and development (R&D) (e.g., resistance to
viruses and pests, tolerance to drought, modied chemical composition, enhanced nutri-
tional content, etc.) (National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, 2016). Cul-
tivation in the EU has remained limited to Bt-maize that in 2013 has been cultivated in
almost 150,000 hectares mainly in Spain (137,000 ha), followed by Portugal, the Czech
Republic, and Romania and Slovakia (European Commission, 2015). However, ve new
GM events for cultivation are currently being examined by EU Commission for a possible
imminent approval. At the same time, the number of experimental eld release trials has
seen a continuous decline over the last years (Gómez-Galera et al., 2012).
It is notable that although a plethora of research projects have been conducted result-
ing in scientic publications which examine the impacts of GM crops on the receiving
environments, on animal and human health, and on the functioning of farms, markets and
59
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
rural communities, the technology is still controversial on a number of levels. ere is a
large body of scientic evidence suggesting that, although there are still reasons for concern
and associated risks which must be carefully assessed (e.g., crop failures, price increases,
seed market monopolisation and farmers’ dependency on a few technology providers, co-
existence with non-GM crops, negative impacts on non-target organisms, and resistance
development in target pest populations, etc.), when managed and used appropriately GM
crops may provide notable benets (e.g., reduced use of pesticides, implementation of no-
till agriculture which sequesters carbon and builds up exhausted soils, increased harvests,
revenues and prots for farmers, reduced mycotoxin content in harvested maize, etc.) (Bar-
am and Bourrierm, 2011; Graef et al., 2012; Mora et al., 2012; Jacobsen et al., 2013; Devos
et al., 2014; Mannion and Morse, 2012). At the same time, there is also a growing body
of completed and on-going scientic programmes specically dedicated to the assessment
of the potential socio-economic, environmental and health eects of the use of GM crops
within both Europe and globally (European Commission, 2010).
Given the number of research initiatives, it is important to focus the available resourc-
es for research on the most critical gaps in our knowledge, so that more informed regula-
tory and policy decisions can be made in the future. is means, at the EU level, to sig-
nicantly enhance the alignment of the research programmes of the individual Member
States, identifying knowledge gaps and capacity building needs, in order to avoid duplica-
tion of work in these areas, to leverage complementarities, and to enhance coordination
between scientists from all over Europe. is should be done improving the engagement
of stakeholders (e.g., industry, farming organisations, civil society organisations – CSO,
non-governmental organisations – NGOs, EU and national competent authorities, fund-
ing organisations, academia, etc.) in the shaping of future research agendas and pro-
grammes, in order to make these research programmes more meaningful to the end-users
of the scientic results, and to increase legitimisation of research trajectories and owner-
ship (Ross, 2007; Noteborn and van Duijne, 2011; Graef et al., 2012). e involvement of
stakeholders in the identication of risks and concerns is believed to have a key role in
the process of technology evaluation. e use of GMOs is given as an example for con-
tested innovation in the EU, which failed to take into consideration the ethical concerns,
uncertainties and risks at an early stage of the technology development (van den Hoven,
2013). Although the use of GM crops in agriculture remains greatly questioned in the EU,
new varieties have been developed around the world, which may nd their way into the
EU market in the near future (Parisi et al., 2016). Genomic technologies have substan-
tially improved since the appearance of rst cultivated GM crops, so that individual plants
genome can be sequenced and analysed, genotyping methods have improved in through-
put and cost eciency; thus, it is likely that additional traits can be introduced into cul-
tivated plants with increased eciency and reduce costs associated with breeding. Such
developments imply the need to steer the public research policy to invest its resources in
better correspondence to the social concerns related to genetic technologies.
is paper is part of the PreSto GMO ERA-Net project1 aiming at creating and suc-
cessfully implementing an ERA-Net (European Research Area Network)2 that will coor-
1 PreSto GMO ERA-Net (Preparatory steps towards a GMO research ERA-Net), EU FP7, Grant agreement n.
612739. See the website: http://www.presto-gmo-era-net.eu.
2 e objective of the ERA-NET scheme is to step up the cooperation and coordination of research activities
60 D. Menozzi
dinate research activities carried out at national or regional level in the Member States
and the mutual opening of national and regional research programmes on the eects of
GMOs in the areas of socio-economics, human and animal health, and the environment
(Rauschen et al., 2015). In particular, this paper aims to identify knowledge gaps and
future research needs on the eects of GMOs based on the analysis of the research priori-
ties and a dialogue with the stakeholders. We present the results of a mapping exercise of
existing research activities on the eects of GMOs in Europe, and the main outcomes of
an international workshop with relevant experts and stakeholders, European institutions,
and CSOs held in Milan in November 2014.
2. Material and methods
2.1 Mapping of existing research activities
e rst step was to provide an overview of existing research activities and knowl-
edge regarding the socio-economic, health, and environmental eects of GMOs in Europe.
is was performed by an up-to-date mapping of national research programmes, projects,
infrastructures, activities, research groups and capacities in the EU and internationally. e
following GMO assessment databases or datasets were used in mapping existing research
activities: SCAR-Collaborative Working Group “GMO Risk Research” (SCAR-CWG, 2012),
the BiosafeRes database3, and the European Commission’s compendium summarizing the
results of 50 GMO research projects, co-funded by the EC and conducted in the period
2001-2010 (European Commission, 2010). e data were integrated and updated with a
questionnaire developed on a web-based platform (the CADIMA4 database) and submit-
ted to national focal points to collect information from Member States (Moyankova and
Kostov, 2015). rough the questionnaire it was possible to collect details describing
recent and ongoing projects examining the GMO eects, such as the thematic area of the
research, the sources of funding and the type of organizations that carried out the research.
e questionnaire was designed in a specialized section of the CADIMA database for col-
lection of data about the recent and ongoing GMO assessment projects. e projects were
characterized by one reviewer according to several categories including:
a. type of funding (government, EU funding, industry, other);
b. type of project leading organization (research/academy, individual, private company,
other);
c. regional level of the project consortium (national, international EU, international
beyond EU);
d. type of organizations in the project consortium (industry, research/academy, govern-
carried out at national or regional level in the Member States and Associated States through the networking
of research activities conducted at national or regional level, and the mutual opening of national and regional
research programmes.
3 The BiosafeRes database is a worldwide, web-based, free and public-access database of past and current
research projects in GMO Biosafety, is improving communication within the scientic community, and thus
clearly facilitates development of more and better worldwide collaborative research ventures in this eld by
encouraging synergy. Available at: http://biosaferes.icgeb.org.
4 Central Access Database for Impact Assessment of Crop Genetic Improvement Technologies, see the website:
http://www.cadima.info.
61
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
ment, other, or mix of them);
e. type of GMO analysed in the project (GM plant, GM animal, GM micro-organisms);
f. main topic of GMO impact assessment (environment, animal health, human health,
technology/society, other);
g. sub-topics of impact assessment (e.g., for environment: soil, water, air, biodiversity,
plant pest and diseases, geochemical variables, landscape structure, target eects, non-
target eects, other).
2.2 The stakeholder engagement approach
Starting from the results of the mapping exercise, the objective of the international
workshop held in Milan on November 24th, 2014, was to use a transparent and structured
approach for recommending a list of transnational research needs regarding the eects of
GMOs in the areas of socio-economics, human and animal health, and environment, as
well as requirements for sharing of available research capacities and existing infrastruc-
tures. e focus of the workshop was on GM crops or other applications (e.g., animals,
micro-organisms, etc.) on the marketplace or near to be commercialized, not necessarily
in the EU, but that may have eects in the EU. Applications intentionally released into
the environment and/or used immediately in feed and food applications were considered.
A Stakeholder Engagement Protocol was agreed with project partners to clarify workshop
aims, activities, and research question development (Menozzi et al., 2014). e stakehold-
er involvement process began with the generation of a “Potential Stakeholder Database.
e experts were specically selected based on their career, successfully achievements
and long-standing expertise in the eld of GMOs related to scientic, economic, social
and policies aspects. In addition, a broadest group of stakeholders in dierent elds were
added in the database, including representative leaders of farmer’s organizations, public
authorities and agencies, EU research Institutions, private companies and other relevant
stakeholders. A preliminary list was sent to the project partners and integrated with their
suggestions. en, the experts and stakeholders were contacted following a step-by-step
criteria in order to have a right balance between the three scientic areas, as well as a fair
representation of the Member States. A registration before the deadline was required in
order to dene the number of participants, their role and activities, to guarantee the right
balance of the attendees.
Forty-ve stakeholders were invited to represent a right balance of expertise between
the three areas (i.e. socio-economics, human and animal health, and environment), organ-
izational perspective (academic, Member State and EU agency, CSO communities) and
geographical areas. e international workshop activities, conducted by three facilitators
of the University of Parma, were divided into two sections. e morning session was dedi-
cated to share and discuss preliminary results of the project with the participants, includ-
ing the results of the mapping of existing research activities. In the aernoon session the
participants were divided into three working groups, based on the area of expertise or
interest, to identify the relevant transnational research needs. e three working groups
used a structured multi-stage approach, consisting in six steps. Steps from 1 to 5 aimed at
populating the list of transnational research needs (Figure 1), while Step 6 consisted in the
identication of capacity/infrastructure needs to cover those research needs.
62 D. Menozzi
Figure 1. Flow chart for identifying a list of future research needs by the stakeholders.
Stage 1. A questionnaire was sent two weeks before the workshop to all the experts
and stakeholders to identify the main research questions across GM species/traits and
eects. Based on their replies to the questionnaire, a structured dataset of initial research
questions was populated.
Stage 2. Participants in each working group were encouraged to submit modica-
tions to existing research questions or add new ones, given the evidence provided by the
mapping of existing research activities. e initial dataset of research questions was then
established.
Stage 3. Each working group reviewed the initial dataset of research questions on its
area of expertise discussing whether an existing solution to the research need exists and
was available. If this was the case, the use of research outcomes already undertaken was
recommended.
Stage 4. If the research need was not investigated so far, or if the results were not
already available or applicable, the experts considered if it was on the European agenda or
not. If yes, an EU funded project was more appropriate and therefore recommended.
Stage 5. If the research need was not on the current EU agenda, the experts checked
if it could be dened as a transnational interest. If yes, then a programme funded transna-
tionally by the ERA-Net was a likely solution (transnational research need); otherwise, if it
was only on a national agenda, then a national project or programme was suggested.
Stage 6. Once the list of transnational research needs was populated, the moderator
asked participants which capacity/infrastructure needs were available in order to cover
those transnational research needs.
A trained facilitator conducted the discussion in each working group. Potential disagree-
ments were discussed, and eventually reported as such. All inputs from the working groups
were presented in the plenary session, including the areas of persistent disagreements.
63
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
3. Results: existing research activities on GMOs in Europe
Information about 320 projects on existing research activities regarding the techno-
and socio-economic, health, and environmental eects of GMOs in Europe were collected
through the mapping exercise (Moyankova and Kostov, 2015). e data included the type
of organizations leading the projects, the funding source, the topics of the GMO assess-
ment projects (human health, animal health, environment, technological/social), and the
studied GMO species. Unfortunately, it was not possible to collect consistent information
about the projects’ budget and timing. is may have introduced a bias since it was not
possible to evaluate the projects’ relative importance and achieved results. Nevertheless,
the number and type of projects alone provides a valid mapping of current research activi-
ties to be used as a starting point for the purposes of the study.
e surveyed GMO projects in Europe have started between 1989 and 2010. Most of
the projects (85%) were led by research or academy organizations such as universities, insti-
tutes or research centers. A relatively small portion of the projects were led by government
organization and private companies, accounting for only 9% and 5% respectively. Most of
the projects were carried out at national level (198 projects). International collaboration was
predominantly among European countries (80 projects), while only 27 projects included
countries outside Europe. A number of 15 projects did not provide this information.
e GMO projects were led by institutions in dierent European countries. When
considering the number of GMO projects per million capita inhabitants, Austria is on
leader position with 6.0 projects per million capita, followed by Denmark (3.1), Norway
(2.8), Finland (2.3), Ireland (1.4), Hungary (1.2) and Belgium (1.1). e other countries,
i.e. France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United
Kingdom, have less than 1 project per million capita. e EU is the only funding source
for projects leaded by Greek and Irish organizations, while other organizations based in
Hungary, Sweden and Switzerland had only projects funded by national sources (Fig-
ure 2). Seven of the project leader countries are funded mainly by governments, namely
UK, Spain, Norway, Italy, Germany, Finland and Austria. e EU was the major funding
source for project leaders based in the Netherlands, Denmark, France and Belgium.
Not surprisingly, projects were mostly focusing on GM plants (196 projects, 68% of
the total, Figure 3). GM micro-organisms and GM animals were analysed only in 20 (6%)
and 10 (3%) projects, respectively. A few projects (7) were dealing with GM plants and
micro-organisms at the same time. Many projects did not specify the type of GMO that
was analysed (n=65, 20%). e interaction of GMO with the environment was investigat-
ed in more than a half of the projects (52%, Figure 3). One third of the projects (33%)
were dealing with the developments of new methods, tools for detection in and analyses
of food and feed, methods for risk assessments, new technique, etc. e eect of GMOs
on human and animal health is a topic of interest in 10% and 4% of the projects, respec-
tively. Many projects covered several topics at the same time. e main subjects (environ-
ment, human health, animal health and technology/society) showed the same distribution
when crossed by type of studied GMOs (Figure 3).
Biodiversity preservation is the predominant sub-topic (58%) in the projects studying
the interaction of GMOs with the environment (Table 1). e eect on non-target spe-
cies was analysed in 25% of the projects. Other sub-categories were objects of only few
64 D. Menozzi
projects. Among the dierent types of GMOs, the GM crops are the most investigated for
their eect on the environment (Table 1). e technological and socio-economic aspects
of the GMOs were analysed in 120 projects. Development of new methods for GMO
detection and technological innovation were predominantly studied in 76% of these pro-
jects. Among the socio-economic issues, the economic eciency was studied the most,
followed by consumer demand and food security (Table 1). Many projects covering this
Figure 2. Number of GMO projects by funding source (EU, Government, Industry and other funding
source) in Europe per country (n = 305).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
UnitedKingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Spai n
Norway
Italy
Ir elan d
Hun gary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Belgium
Aust ria
EUfunding
Government
Industry
Other
Source: own elaboration.
Figure 3. Type of analysed GMOs and main topics (n = 320*).
050 100 150 200 250 300
GMani mals
GM m i c ro o r ga ni sms
GMc ro ps
GMcropsandmicroorganisms
Notspeci fied
Numberofprojects
Technology/Society
Environment
Humanhealth
Animalhealth
Source: own elaboration. * Note: Many projects covered more than one topic.
65
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
topic did not specify the type of GMO and this hampered the data analysis. Fewer pro-
jects treated the eects of GMOs on human health (Table 1). Food safety and allergenicy
were the most explored sub-topics in particular for GM crops. e eect of GMOs on ani-
mal health was explored in 15 projects, where feed safety was the only subject analysed.
GM crops interaction with human and animal health was the most studied topic, whilst
GM animals impact was analysed in only one project. Considering the country of the
leading organization, Switzerland and Spain had projects that only dealt with the eects
of GMOs on the environment. is subject was the most studied in 7 project leader coun-
tries, namely UK, Sweden, Ireland, France, Finland, Denmark and Austria. Organizations
from Belgium, Italy and Norway were leading mainly projects about technology and social
eect of GMOs. GMOs safety for human health is relatively more studied in 2 countries,
i.e. Hungary and Greece. e less studied subject was the eect of GM feed on animal’s
health. Only 5 countries were leading few projects about this topic, the most relevant of
which was Hungary.
Table 1. Health, environment and socio-economics subtopics of the GMO assessment projects in
Europe (n=320*).
GM crops Micro-
organisms
GM
animals
GM crops
and micro-
organisms
Not
specied Tota l
Food safety 17 1 1 - 4 23
Feed safety 13 - - - 2 15
Allergenicity 5 - - - - 5
Toxicity 3 - - - - 3
erapeutic use 1 1 - - - 2
Nutritional value 2----2
Total Health 41 2 1 0 6 50
Biodiversity 67 11 2 4 14 98
Non-target eects 39 - - 2 1 42
Soil 8 2 - 1 1 12
Target eects 6-3--9
Plant pest and diseases 6----6
Other eects 2----2
Total Environment 128 13 5 7 16 169
Economic eciency 11 - - 1 2 14
Consumer demand 1 - - 1 9 11
Food security 2----2
Other eects ----22
Total Socio-Economics 14 0 0 2 13 29
Innovative technology 53 7 4 1 18 83
Technical application 5 - - - 3 8
Total Technology 56 7 4 1 21 91
Tota l 241 22 10 10 55 339
Source: own elaboration. * Note: Many projects covered more than one topic.
66 D. Menozzi
4. Results: stakeholders view on the future research needs
4.1 Workshop participants
Of the total 45 experts contacted for participating in the international workshop, a
nal number of 20 individuals participated in the activities (Table 2); Powers et al. (2014)
suggested that a number between 20 and 25 gives a right balance between the diversity of
technical and sector perspectives and uid working relationships.
Table 2. Workshop contracted persons and participants per category.
Categor y Contacted persons Participants Participation rate
Expert Environment 11 7 64%
Expert Socio-Economics 4 4 100%
Expert Health 7 2 29%
Stakeholders 14 2 14%
European Institutions 4 1 25%
Funding Bodies 5 4 80%
Tot al 45 20 44%
e experts studying the environmental eects of GMOs were the most represented,
followed by the socio-economic experts. e participants were 44% of total the number
of contacted persons. Although a fair gender balance was taken into consideration in
contacting the experts, males were more represented than women in the nal group of
participants (75% males). e weakest participation was found among the stakeholders
(14%), whilst the highest rate was found among the socio-economic experts (100%), then
the environmental (64%) and nally among the health (29%). e participants originat-
ed from ten European countries (Italy 3, Germany 3, e Netherlands 2, Austria 2, UK
2, Swiss 1, Spain 1, Denmark 1, Bulgaria 1, Romania 1); three stakeholders represented
European organizations/institutions (i.e., COPA/Cogeca, the Public Research & Regula-
tion Initiative – PRRI –, and the European Food Safety Authority – EFSA). e career
stage of the participants was quite homogeneous, since most of them were in a senior
position, leaders of research units or project leaders. As observed by Schneider and Gill
(2016) having both young and senior researchers in the same group could discourage
some participants to express their views, leading seniors to control the discussion with
their point of view.
4.2 Initial dataset of research questions
e initial dataset of research questions to consider in developing research needs, as
resulted from stages 1) and 2) (see Section 2.2), have been categorised across the subject
areas (i.e. socio-economics, human and animal health, and environment), and species/
traits (i.e. GM crops, insects, animals, micro-organisms and all GMOs). us, dened cat-
egories of questions were aligned with the results from the mapping exercise to identify
67
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
potential gaps in the research that has been done so far, and the future research directions
considered relevant by the stakeholders. Table 3 provides a synthetic representation of the
initial research needs considered by the experts in their deeper analysis.
A list of 48 research questions was developed by the experts in the socio-economic
area. e identied projects in the mapping of current research activities (see Table 1, Sec-
tion 3) are related mainly to the economic eciency and consumer demand. Similarly, the
stakeholders consider important the general economic eects, such as the costs and the
protability, but also more specic subjects like the economics of segregation/co-exist-
ence, legislative framework, consumers perception and attitudes, macro-economic, yields,
and other eects (Table 3). Most of them were considered for all GMOs and GM crops
in general, or insect resistant (IR) crops and herbicide tolerant/herbicide resistant (HT/
HR) crops. For instance, the experts considered the necessity to include ‘non-pecuniary’
benets in the analysis of costs savings related to HT and IR crops (e.g., o-farm income,
management time saving, labour exibility, equipment cost savings, better standability,
etc.), to improve the methodology to analyse the segregation rules of GMOs (e.g., the wel-
fare eects of labelling and segregation policy), and to evaluate the economic eects of
relatively less widespread varieties, such as virus-resistant cassava and Golden rice. Only
one research question was identied by the workshop participants for species other than
crops: the assessment of the socio-economic impact of GM animals. e large portion of
research questions in the initial dataset dened by the stakeholder are specic to dier-
ent types of GM crops which already exist on the market or are under development. GM
plants and crops are also subjects of many projects identied during the mapping exer-
cise (Table 1). Since new GM crops and traits are under development outside the EU, and
potentially access to the common market in the next future, the experts and stakeholders
have suggested to concentrate research eorts on vegetable species.
e European research carried out so far in the area of human and animal health is
primary related to the safety of GM food and feed (Table 1). During stages 1) and 2) a
number of 25 research needs were identied in the area of health (Table 3), divided into
the main eects food and feed safety, nutritional value, allergenicity, toxicity and other.
For instance, the experts considered the need to assess the positive health eects of the
reduced fumonisin content in IR crops. It was argued that GM crop unintentionally pro-
duce high amount of toxic substances, e.g. acetylated aspartic acid, and that animal will be
the main users being exposed to such substances. erefore, research is needed to focus
on developing and validating a test protocol in livestock animals. Most of these research
needs were considered for all GMOs, while none where identied for insects and other
animals. is probably because it was stressed that the focus was on GMOs on the mar-
ket or near to be commercialized. ese results indicate no substantial dierences in the
research carried out so far and the future research needs in the area of human and animal
health as the questions related to the toxicity, allerginicity and food safety are still central
for the novel applications of GMOs (Parisi et al., 2016).
A number of 47 research needs were identify by the experts to cover the area of envi-
ronment (Table 3). Most of the projects carried out so far on the environmental impact
of GMOs are dealing with biodiversity and non-target eects (Table 1). Questions related
to the possible eects to biodiversity of the emerging crop varieties and traits are still of
interest according the stakeholders for dierent kinds of GMOs. Quality of soil and water
68 D. Menozzi
Table 3. Initial research needs in the three areas: health, environment and socio-economics.
All GMOs General
crops IR crops HT/HR
crops
GM crops
with
stacked
traits
RNAi-
based
plants
Other
plants Insects Other
animals
Micro-
organisms Tot al
Food safety 2 - 2 - - - - - - 2 6
Nutritional value 1 1 - - - - 3 - - - 5
Allerginicity 3 - - - - - - - - 1 4
Toxicity 2 - 1 - - - - - - - 3
Feed safety 21--------3
Other eects -----4----4
Total Health 1023004300325
Biodiversity 2 - 3 2 4 - 2 - - 1 14
Soil 2--1--1--26
Wat er - - 2 - - - 1 - - 2 5
Plant pest and diseases 2-11--1- --5
Air - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 3
Ecosystem services 2---------2
Climate change 1---------1
Other eects 2 - - - - 5 4 - - - 11
Total Environment 1117445900647
Economic eects in general 1 3 2 2 2 - 1 - - - 11
Costs - 2 1 2 - - 1 - - - 6
Protability 1 1 2 - 1 - - - - - 5
Segregation/coexistence 2 - 2 - - - - - - - 4
Legislative framework 22--------4
Consumers and society 11--- -1-1-4
Macro-economic eects - 1 1 1 - - - - - - 3
Yields 1 - - - - - 1 - - - 2
Other eects 4 2 2 1 - - - - - - 9
Total Socio-Economics 12 12 10 6 3 0 4 0 1 0 48
Source: own elaboration.
69
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
are also pointed as important followed by the eects to plant pest and diseases, air, ecosys-
tem services, climate change, and other eects. Most of the research needs were identied
for all GMOs, IR crops or other plants. For instance, stakeholders claimed to develop eld
methods to monitor soil process intensity and changes, to implement an application of
environmental DNA to detect changes in biodiversity, and to evaluate the potential eects
on non-targeted organisms (NTOs) and the possible protein interactions or synergistic
eects of stacked events expressing Cry and Vip proteins. No research need was identied
for GM insects or other animals.
e initial dataset of research questions was provided to the workshop participant as
a starting point, to support thinking about potential research needs that were outside their
specic expertise area. e lists supplemented explicit encouragement to participants to
think broadly about potential research areas. e activities of the three working groups
have followed the structured multi-stage approach described in Figure 1. Each working
group was arranged of 5/6 experts, one moderator and one note-taker, chosen among the
project partners. e participants in each working group reached a relatively small list of
research needs (from 14 to 18), also by individual questions into groups of questions that
were similar or closely related. Consolidating individual questions into broader research
areas was encouraged when they had similar implications for an assessment or subsequent
risk management decision. e complete list of research needs is reported in Menozzi et
al. (2014).
4.3 Socio-economic research needs
e “Socio-economic” working group identied several categories of research needs.
According to the experts eorts are needed to develop a methodological framework for
assessing the socio-economic eects of GMOs. is framework should be used to inform
policy development. Socio-economic considerations are already included in the regulatory
frameworks on GMOs of some countries (Binimelis and Myhr, 2016). However, it is nec-
essary to work to develop a robust framework and methodology, including criteria, indi-
cators, etc., capturing socio-economic considerations in biosafety decision-making. Gar-
cia-Yì et al. (2014) identied six topics, i.e. the farm-level economic impacts, the econom-
ics of co-existence, the economics of segregation at the supply chain level, the consum-
ers’ acceptance of GMOs, the environmental economics impact and the impacts of GMOs
on food security. us, although there is a high interest in the implementation of socio-
economic considerations in biosafety regulations (Binimelis and Myhr, 2016), research is
needed to establish a robust framework on the socio-economic impacts of GMOs, and
methodology covering data gathering, assessment and decision making.
From the supply chain point of view, Park et al. (2011) have estimated the revenue
forgone by EU farmers due to on-going limited use of IR and HT crops. Similarly, the
eects of the EU regulation on GMOs on EU competitiveness and on innovative research
developed at the EU level should be assessed, as well as the welfare eects across dierent
groups in society (e.g., farmers, consumers, etc.) in the context of dierent policy settings
(e.g., labelling). For instance, the EU co-existence measures aect farmers dierently across
EU Member States according to the isolation distances (between GM and non-GM crops)
required by dierent countries and for dierent species (Ramessar et al., 2010). An eco-
70 D. Menozzi
nomic evaluation of the welfare distribution of exible co-existence regulations may assist
the adoption of proportionate measures (Devos et al., 2014). e stakeholders claimed
that the eects of GMOs along the whole supply chain should be investigated further. is
point goes beyond the common cost-benet analysis; it considers how the structure of sup-
ply chains is aected by innovation, how the eciency is impacted, how the horizontal/
vertical relationships could change, what are the implication on labour market, etc. Up to
now, research mostly concentrates on how costs and benets are distributed along the sup-
ply chain (Garcia-Yì et al., 2014). Few projects have already dealt with supply chain impact,
on structure and performance, of co-existence and segregation measures (e.g., the EU FP6
projects SIGMEA and CO-EXTRA; see also Ghozzi et al., 2016); however, a more deep
analysis of supply chain eects (e.g., on structure and relationships) is missing.
Consumers’ attitude towards the use of new techniques in food production (e.g., new
breeding techniques, nanotechnology – GMOs) needs to be investigated further. In fact,
although most of what can be known by questioning on a hypothetical base has already
been investigated (Dannenberg, 2009), research is missing on consumers’ acceptance stud-
ies using real settings. Further research eorts are needed to explore on the economic
evaluation of the eects (positive and negative) of GMOs on the environment, using a
multidisciplinary approach (Garcia-Yì et al., 2014). In this context, a comparative analysis
of GM, organic and conventional crops in terms of environmental, social and economic
sustainability, should be elaborated.
At farm level, research usually evaluated the main economic eects of GM crops, such
as yield, costs, gross margin (European Commission, 2011). More research is needed to
study the economic implications of more ecient GM varieties, like second generation
GMOs (e.g., nitrogen-ecient GM wheat), e.g., assessing how these GMOs move the yield
frontier, how improvements in yield eciency aect the economic performance of farm-
ers, etc. is research need is likely a transnational one, since not all the countries could
have the same interest. Moreover, other socio-economic impacts are scarcely documented,
such as the indirect eects arising from the GM crops management (e.g., how GM appli-
cations aect farm management planning, cropping system, crop rotation, etc.). Research
should also study the dierences between intensive and extensive margin eects (Bennett
et al., 2013), the stability of new GM crops yields (e.g. draught resistant) on a mid- and
long- term basis, and the economic performance of HT crops (Areal et al., 2012).
Finally, the socio-economic group noted the need to develop systematic reviews and
meta-analyses to consolidate existing knowledge, and to improve the communication of
available evidence. In terms of communication, research is also needed to better under-
stand the key elements in stakeholders’ communication and interaction.
4.4 Human and animal health research needs
e “Human and animal health” working group distinguished research needs across
all types of GM species. Major consideration related to the GM crops intended to be
used as food and feed is whether they are safe for consumption, which should be evalu-
ated under the EU risk assessment frame. While there is substantial amount of experi-
mental data (e.g., feeding studies with laboratory and livestock animals) for the varieties
which already exist on the market (Flachowsky et al., 2012; Snell et al., 2012; Ricroch
71
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
et al., 2014), a specic food safety concerns could emerge with the development of new
types of GM crops such as plants combining several modications (stacks) and GM plants
with deliberately modied nutritional properties (Halford et al., 2014; Ramon et al., 2014).
Specic health related questions were pointed by the stakeholders; for instance, the group
agreed that research is needed to explore toxicity eects of multiple Bt proteins in in-vitro
systems, the potential hypo-allergenicity of GM crops, and the denition of the minimal
required inclusion level of plant-expressed phytase for ecient phosphorus utilization of
animals. Traceability and post-marker monitoring are also among the stockholders con-
cerns; there is also a considerable lack of data on the traceability of specic GM crops,
on verication of consumption and/or potential health impacts of GM food ingredients
(e.g., GM crops with enhanced fatty acids), as well as on toxic substances produced by
GM plants used in feed production (i.e. acetylated aspartic acid).
Further, the group noted that little knowledge is available on the health eects of
producing pharmaceuticals by the use of GM plants. While substantial progress has been
made in the development of GM plants for molecular farming, still the scale remains rela-
tively small, mainly performed in laboratory or contained conditions. e major challenge
is the legislative frame and the adaptation of the risk assessment principles to this plant
biotechnology applications (Sparrow et al., 2013). e group agreed that a common fea-
ture of risk assessment of potential protein toxicity is needed (bioinformatics). A specic
issue was raised for myco-toxins in Bt maize; research is needed to assess whether reduced
fumonisin content can be found, as well as their potential and real benets. Although
there is a large body of knowledge available, there is a need to develop a systematic analy-
sis of the data collected by the regulatory bodies.
GM plants producing RNAi molecules represent a biotechnological development
which seems close to the EU market; therefore, experts have raised concerns over the
potential health implications due to the technological dierences with the rst generation
of GM plants. Steps towards the identication and evaluation of the specic human and
animal health risk that may come with the new generations of GMOs and the adaptation
of the regulations and risk assessment guidelines have already been taken by the scien-
tists, agencies and regulatory bodies (Petrick et al., 2013; Ramon et al., 2014). e “health
working group considered a number of research needs related to RNAi based plants, for
instance more information is needed on survival and uptake in humans and animals, and
post-market monitoring. Although it’s a corporate responsibility to deal with the commer-
cial production and marketing, the EU authorities must provide the appropriate methodol-
ogy and tools for their monitoring along the whole supply chain. An example for this is
the database on food consumption of the EU Member States that is being collated by the
EFSA. e same is needed for feed ingredients. Allergenicity is commonly considered for
humans, whereas there is only limited knowledge available on the impact on farm animals.
is type of investigation should also explore possible links with post-market monitoring.
Finally, there is still uncertainty about the potential for horizontal gene transfer of
genetically modied micro-organisms (GMMs) and viral DNA. Although this concern has
been investigated and discussed in the past (Dröge et al., 1998; Keese, 2008), stakeholders
pointed that better methods need to be developed to assess the presence and diusion of
recombinant DNA and cells.
72 D. Menozzi
4.5 Environmental research needs
e “Environment” working group determined that the research needs can be priori-
tised according to the criterion of “ecosystem services” provision (Tscharntke et al., 2005).
Such an approach would involve the monitoring of cultivated land (on-crop area), but
also of the space between crops in a landscape (o-crop area), and analyse how these two
dierent kinds of areas inuence each other in terms of ecological functionality. In this
respect, the need for comparative study of dierent Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
systems used in the EU Member States was highlighted, as well as the need to assess the
role that GMOs (plants and insects) might play in such IPM systems (Hokkanen, 2015).
Moreover, eorts should be directed to study the ecacy of GMOs in dierent GM events
which hold promises of relevant economic and environmental benets, such as blight
resistance potato (Haverkort et al., 2016), and to a deeper understanding of the develop-
ment dynamics of insecticidal protein resistance mechanisms in target insects (e.g., corn
borers, etc.).
Additionally, regulating and supporting services (pollination, pest control, soil fertility
maintenance, etc.) were considered. e experts concluded that goals for the protection
against undesirable eects have to be assessed at the landscape level. is type of moni-
toring, however, requires instruments to study the possible eects of dierent stressors,
including GMOs, on key species and ecosystem services (e.g., on bees and wild pollina-
tors). System interfaces (i.e. land and water) were also dened as important points to
explore further, as well as the change of dynamics in the system over time. More informa-
tion on species assemblages before introduction of GM crops, to dene appropriate base-
line indicators, is needed for plants, arthropods and micro-organisms (e.g., soil indicators)
(van Capelle et al., 2016).
Further, the protection of cultural services was discussed (e.g., how people perceive
agriculture, recreation, psychological benets from contact with nature, etc.). Research is
needed to study biodiversity in protected areas from dierent perspectives, in particular
to qualify what type and level of biodiversity that society would like to maintain locally.
Cropping practices (i.e. weed control eciency) may have indirect eects on nearby val-
ued areas. For instance, the elimination of weeds by farmers on their elds has also an
impact on the trophic level in terms of available resources for sap feeders, pollinators, nat-
ural enemies, etc., that may in turn aect the functional biodiversity of neighbouring areas
and need to be investigated further (Bürger et al., 2015). In general, there is also a need
to study the people’s perception of dierent agricultural systems, and this should ideally
involve both the natural and the social sciences (multi-disciplinary research).
Finally, the group included research needs not strictly related to ecological services.
ere is strong support for looking more into automated and harmonized methods for
general surveillance, for studying non-target eects of new modes of action (e.g., RNAi)
(Lundgren and Duan, 2013), and for new traits and breeding techniques on the envi-
ronment. ere are still knowledge gaps about the traceability and environmental fate
of GMMs, and to develop bioinformatic tools for studying their evolution in the system.
Finally, there is also limited knowledge about the eects of GM arthropods on the environ-
ment, and this is also an area characterized by quickly progressing of genomic technologies
for possible applications in agricultural as well as in human diseases prevention projects.
73
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
5. Results: requirements for sharing capacities and infrastructures
e main requirements for sharing existing (national) capacities and infrastructures
were identied during the working groups’ activities.
e “Human and animal health” working group found that in various countries there
is a high level of expertise available for studying the hypo-allergenicity of GM crops which
needs to be shared. Harmonization and joint initiatives are possible for sharing experiences
on the traceability of specic GM crops. Since applications for RNAi-expressing crops have
been mostly developed outside the EU, and limited expertise is available at the EU level, the
group concluded that a transnational organization of capacities would put the EU in a posi-
tion to overcome this decit in the future. As a lot of research has been done on peptide (e.g.,
cytotoxic peptides, food peptides) and their physiological eects (e.g., dairy research, antibiot-
ics), the group dened the need to integrate these research capacities available across certain
EU countries and sectors, for the purpose of assessing potential protein toxicity as another
important study area. For the assessment of allergenicity in farm animals there are probably
only limited capacities available at the EU level, and future research would also benet from
transnational organization of resources. A high level of expertise for GMMs and viral DNA
horizontal gene transfer was found in various EU countries; again, the relative research needs
are invited to be organized transnationally to increase the overall eciency.
e “Environment” working group dened requirements for sharing controlled exper-
imental eld sites throughout Europe, to allow GMO eld testing on representative envi-
ronments of the various European settings. e elds could also be used to avoid several
regulatory constrains which make it dicult for public research in Europe to study the
eects of GMOs. e group discussed the necessity to have meso-cosm facilities for soil-
based experiments. e group concluded that calls for multi-/inter-disciplinary actions
and projects should invite applications that combine dierent technologies/methods
of scientic enquiry. Finally, it was felt that the GM regulatory, testing and monitoring
methods should be harmonised, as much as possible, with other, similar methods and
approaches in related areas (e.g., pesticide registration, international work on the valuing
and monitoring of ecosystem services, etc.).
e “Socio-economic” working group discussed the need to develop protocols and guide-
lines for conducting socio-economic impact assessments, which would ensure basic compat-
ibility of results, without sacricing the exibility of approaches in the process. Similarly to
the “Environment” group, they also highlighted the need to share eld trials, and to develop
more eld studies for assessing yields, costs, and other economic aspects of the use of GMOs.
In addition, the need to develop multidisciplinary tasks capable of taking qualitative research
(e.g., socio-psychology, behavioural economics, etc.) into account, was included in the list of
priorities. Finally, the group concluded that researchers’ capacities should be shared, via train-
ing and sta exchange programs, thus developing ways to facilitate future collaboration among
researchers from dierent countries (e.g., sharing capacities, PhD programmes, etc.).
6. Conclusions
is paper aims to promote a critical debate among relevant stakeholders and policy
makers by identifying future research directions in the evaluation of environmental, health
74 D. Menozzi
and socio-economic eects of current and emerging applications of GMOs. e outcome
of the international workshop, which was the follow up of a mapping exercise of existing
research activities in Europe, is a list of perceived transnational research needs and con-
sequent requirements for sharing existing capacities and infrastructures; it therefore rep-
resents more than a generalized description of research trends. e list of research needs
will allow those developing research plans to focus more deeply on one or a few themes
that were deemed more relevant by the scientic community as well as the European risk
managers’ network. is process may provide a basis to develop a prioritization from the
perspective of the diverse group of stakeholders, which is to be developed in a next step of
the project. e results of the PreSto GMO ERA-Net project formed the basis for a joint-
ly prepared strategic plan and roadmap for the implementation of the ERA-Net that will
coordinate transnational research on the eects of GMOs (Rauschen et al., 2015).
As pointed by Twardowski and Małyska (2015), the slow progress in the EU decision
making process forced several biotech companies to move R&D and applied activities to
other regions, thus reducing personnel in the EU and transferring existing know-how out-
side the EU. Moreover, this prevented the commercialization of innovative GMOs, possi-
bly resulting in competitive disadvantages for European farmers (Park et al., 2011). Future
directions of socio-economic research on the eects of GMOs should primarily con-
sider the development of a methodological framework for analysing the socio-economic
eects of GMOs. An assessment of the welfare eects across dierent groups in society
may assist the denition of more informed policies. e research questions related to the
eects of newly emerging GMOs to human and animal health raised by the stakehold-
ers during the workshop were general in many occasions or rather case specic in others.
While some of them might be found relevant for the risk assessment to dierent extend,
others are related to traceability and post-market monitoring, and some could appear
to be within the scope of the risk assessment frameworks to be developed for the new
GMOs, such as RNAi plants. e environmental research needs identied were prioritised
according to the criterion of “ecosystem services”, involving the monitoring of on-crop
and o-crop land area, and how these two dierent kinds of areas inuence each other
in terms of ecological functionality. e emerging applications, as well as the tendency
of GM developers to combine dierent traits to produce new commercial varieties (the
so-called “commercial stacks”) (Parisi et al., 2016), pose relevant questions to researchers,
risk assessors and policy makers on how to adapt the EU regulatory framework consider-
ing the environmental and health-related issues, as well as the socio-economic dimensions
(e.g., international trade) when making decisions on GMOs.
A key factor in implementing this process will be the condence that those planning
and funding research have in the method used (Schneider and Gill, 2016). e activi-
ties described in this paper has explicitly taken into account the wider views of a diver-
sity of stakeholders and end-users (i.e. industry, farming organisations, CSOs, NGOs,
EU and national competent authorities, funding organisations, academia). is intended
to encourage participation of dierent scientic communities (scientists from all over
Europe) in the future joint transnational calls managed through the ERA-Net, to enhance
collaboration between actors (to leverage complementarities) and to increase the account-
ability of research trajectories and outcomes (create an internationally recognizable criti-
cal mass). e decision to consider a single group of 20 participants allowed balancing
75
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
the greater diversity of technical and sector perspectives, and the facilitation of more uid
working involvement from all participants. Breakout groups allowed the experts to elab-
orate on a greater number of details surrounding the interfaces of their disciplines with
others, and this can thoroughly inform the scientic community in planning and promot-
ing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research (Powers, 2014). Viewed from the per-
spective of group dynamics, the entire process aimed to achieve a common understanding
of the research gaps and needs in the evaluation of current and emerging applications of
GMOs able to design future research directions.
7. Funding
is work was supported by the European Commission contract 612739, PreSto GMO
ERA-Net (Preparatory steps towards a GMO research ERA-Net), funded by the EU FP7
programme. e authors declare no competing nancial interests.
8. Acknowledgements
e authors wish to thank the PreSto GMO ERA-Net project partners for their inputs
into the research, in particular the project coordinator Dr. Stefan Rauschen. e authors
gratefully acknowledge the experts and stakeholders who participated in the international
workshop for their active contribution to the identication of future research directions in
the evaluation of emerging applications of GMOs. e authors thank also the anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments. e views expressed are purely those of the
authors and may not under any circumstances be regarded as stating an ocial position of
the European Commission.
References
Areal, F.J., Riesgo, L. and Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2012). Economic and Agronomic Impact
of Commercialized Gm Crops: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Agricultural Science
151(1): 7-33.
Baram, M. and Bourrierm, M. (2011). Governing Risk in GM Agriculture. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, A.B., Chi-Ham, C., Barrows, G., Sexton, S. and Zilberman, D. (2013). Agricultur-
al Biotechnology: Economics, Environment, Ethics, and the Future. Annual Review
Environmental Research 38: 247-279.
Binimelis, R. and Myhr, A.I. (2016). Inclusion and Implementation of Socio-Economic
Considerations in GMO Regulations: Needs and Recommendations. Sustainability
8: 62.
Bürger, J., Darmency, H., Granger, S., Guyot, S.H.M., Messéan, A. and Colbach, N. (2015).
Simulation Study of the Impact of Changed Cropping Practices in Conventional and
Gm Maize on Weeds and Associated Biodiversity. Agricultural Systems 137: 51–63.
Dannenberg, A. (2009). e Dispersion and Development of Consumer Preferences for
Genetically Modied Food — A Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 68: 2182-2192.
76 D. Menozzi
Devos, Y., Dillen, K. and Demont, M. (2014). How Can Flexibility Be Integrated into
Coexistence Regulations? A Review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
94: 381-387.
Dröge, M., Pühler, A. and Selbitschka, W. (1998). Horizontal Gene Transfer as a Biosafety
Issue: A Natural Phenomenon of Public Concern. Journal of Biotechnology 64(1):
75-90.
Drott, L., Jochum, L., Lange, F., Skierka, I., Vach J. and van Asselt, M.B.A. (2013).
Accountability and Risk Governance: A Scenario-Informed Reection on European
Regulation of GMOs. Journal of Risk Research 16(9): 1123-1140.
European Commission (2010). A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001-2010).
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Luxembourg: Publications Oce
of the European Union.
European Commission (2011). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament
and the Council on Socio-Economic Implications of GMO Cultivation on the Basis
of Member States Contributions, as requested by the Conclusions of the Environ-
ment Council of December 2008. SANCO/10715/2011.
European Commission (2015). Fact Sheet: Questions and Answers on EU’s policies on
GMOs. Brussels. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4778_en.htm.
Accessed 25 May 2016.
Flachowsky, G., Scha, H. and Meyer, U. (2012). Animal Feeding Studies for Nutritional
and Safety Assessments of Feeds from Genetically Modied Plants: A Review. Jour-
nal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit 7(3): 179-194.
Garcia-Yi, J., Lapikanonth, T., Vionita, H., Vu, H., Yang, S., Zhong, Y., Li, Y., Nagelsch-
neider, V., Schlindwein, B. and Wesseler, J. (2014). What Are the Socio-Economic
Impacts of Genetically Modied Crops Worldwide? A Systematic Map Protocol.
Environmental Evidence 3: 24.
Ghozzi, H., Soregaroli, C., Boccaletti, S. and Sauvée, L. (2016). Impacts of Non-GMO
Standards on Poultry Supply Chain Governance: Transaction Cost Approach vs.
Resource Based View. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal 21(6):
743-758.
Gómez-Galera, S., Twyman, R. M., Sparrow, P. A., Van Droogenbroeck, B., Custers, R.,
Capell, T. and Christou, P. (2012). Field Trials and Tribulations – Making Sense of
the Regulations for Experimental Field Trials of Transgenic Crops in Europe. Plant
Biotechnology Journal 10(5): 511-523.
Graef, F., Römbke, J., Binimelis, R., Myhr, A.I., Hilbeck, A., Breckling, B., Dalgaard, T.,
Stachow, U., Catacora-Vargas, G., Bøhn, T., Quist, D., Darvas, B., Dudel, G., Oehen,
B., Meyer, H., Henle, K., Wynne, B., Metzger, M.J., Knäbe, S., Settele, J., Székács, A.,
Wurbs, A., Bernard, J., Murphy-Bokern, D., Buiatti, M., Giovannetti, M., Debeljak,
M., Andersen, E., Paetz, A., Dzeroski, St, Tappeser, B., van Gestel, C.A.M., Wosniok,
W., Séralini, G.-E., Aslaksen, I., Pesch, R., Maly, S. and Werner, A. (2012). A Frame-
work for a European Network for a Systematic Environmental Impact Assessment of
Genetically Modied Organisms (GMO). BioRisk 7: 73-97.
Halford, N.G., Hudson, E., Gimson, A., Weightman, R., Shewry, P.R. and Tompkins, S.
(2014). Safety Assessment of Genetically Modied Plants with Deliberately Altered
Composition. Plant Biotechnology Journal 12(6): 651-654.
77
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
Haverkort, A.J., Boonekamp, B.M., Hutten, R., Jacobsen, E., Lotz, L.A.P., Kessel, G.J.T.,
Vossen, J.H. and Visser, R.G.F. (2016). Durable Late Blight Resistance in Potato
rough Dynamic Varieties Obtained by Cisgenesis: Scientic and Societal Advanc-
es in the DuRPh Project. Potato Research 59(1): 35-66.
Herring, R.J. (2008). Opposition to Transgenic Technologies: Ideology, Interests and col-
lective Action Frames. Nature Reviews Genetics 9: 458-463.
Hokkanen, H. (2015). Integrated Pest Management at the Crossroads: Science, Politics, or
Business (as usual)? Arthropod-Plant Interactions 9(6): 543-545.
Jacobsen, S.-E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M. and Weiner, J. (2013). Feeding the World:
Genetically Modied Crops versus Agricultural Biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustain-
able Development 33(4): 651-662.
James, C. (2015). 20th Anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the Global Commercialization of
Biotech Crops and Biotech Crop Highlights in 2015. ISAAA Brief No. 51. Ithaca,
N.Y.: ISAAA.
Keese, P. (2008). Risks from GMOs due to Horizontal Gene Transfer. Environmental
Biosafety Research 7(3): 123-149.
Lundgren, J.G. and Duan, J. (2013). RNAi-Based Insecticidal Crops: Potential Eects on
Nontarget Species. BioScience 63(8): 657-665.
Mannion, A.M. and Morse, S. (2012). Biotechnology in Agriculture: Agronomic and Envi-
ronmental Considerations and Reections Based on 15 Years of GM crops. Progress
in Physical Geography 36(6): 747-763.
Menozzi, D., Mora, C. and Sogari, G. (2014). Report on the workshop. PreSto GMO ERA-
Net, University of Parma, Italy. http://www.presto-gmo-era-net.eu. Accessed 24 May
2016.
Mora, C., Menozzi, D., Kleter, G., Aramyan, L.H., Valeeva, N.I., Zimmermann, K.L. and
Pakki Reddy, G. (2012). Factors Aecting the Adoption of Genetically Modied
Animals in the Food and Pharmaceutical Chains. Bio-based and Applied Economics
1(3): 313-329.
Moyankova, D. and Kostov, K. (2015). Report on the Analyzed Database. PreSto GMO
ERA-Net, AgroBioInstitute, Sofia, Bulgaria. http://www.presto-gmo-era-net.eu.
Accessed 24 May 2016.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016). Genetically Engi-
neered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: e National Acad-
emies Press.
Noteborn, H.P.J.M. and van Duijne, F.H. (2011). e Dutch Approach to Safety Govern-
ance of GM Agriculture. In Baram, M. and Bourrierm, M. (eds), Governing Risk in
GM Agriculture, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Parisi, C., Tillie, P. and Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2016). e Global Pipeline of GM Crops
out to 2020. Nature Biotechnology 34(1): 31-36.
Park, J., McFarlane, I., Phipps, R. and Ceddia, G. (2011). e Impact of the EU Regulatory
Constraint of Transgenic Crops on Farm Income. New Biotechnology 28(4): 396–406.
Petrick, J.S., Brower-Toland, B., Jackson, A.L. and Kier, L.D. (2013). Safety Assessment of
Food and Feed from Biotechnology-Derived Crops Employing Rna-Mediated Gene
Regulation to Achieve Desired Traits: A Scientic Review. Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology 66(2): 167-176.
78 D. Menozzi
Powers, C., Hendren, C., Wang, A. and Davis, M. (2014). Transparent Stakeholder
Engagement in Practice: Lessons Learned from Applying Comprehensive Environ-
mental Assessment to Research Planning for Nanomaterials. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Papers, Paper 230.
Ramessar, K., Capell, T., Twyman, R.M. and Christou, P. (2010). Going to Ridiculous
Lengths —European Coexistence Regulations for GM Crops. Nature Biotechnology
28(2): 133-136.
Ramon, M., Devos, Y., Lanzoni, A., Liu, Y., Gomes, A., Gennaro, A. and Waigmann, E.
(2014). RNAi‐Based GM Plants: Food for ought for Risk Assessors. Plant Biotech-
nology Journal 12(9): 1271-1273.
Rauschen, S., Krieger, K., Racovita, M., Valeeva, N.I., Aramyan, L.H., Zimmermann, K.,
Ovesná, J., Pla, M., Ogras, T., Fuhrmann, E., Karner, S., Kerins, G., Romeis, J. and
Spök, A. (2015). Strategic Implementation Plan for an ERA-Net on GMO Impact
Research. PreSto GMO ERA-Net. http://www.presto-gmo-era-net.eu. Accessed 19
October 2016.
Rausser, G., Zilberman, D. and Kahn, G. (2015). An Alternative Paradigm for Food
Production,Distribution, and Consumption: A Noneconomist’s Perspective. Annual
Review of Resource Economics 7: 309-331.
Ricroch, A.E., Boisron, A. and Kuntz, M. (2014). Looking Back at Safety Assessment of
GM Food/Feed: An Exhaustive Review of 90-Day Animal Feeding Studies. Interna-
tional Journal of Biotechnology 13(4): 230-256.
Ross, K. (2007). Providing “oughtful Feedback”: Public Participation in the Regulation
of Australia’s rst Genetically Modied Food Crop. Science and Public Policy 34(3):
213-225.
SCAR-CWG (2012). Risk Research on Genetically Modied Organisms – Summary
Report 2009 –2011. Standing Committee on Agricultural Research Collabora-
tive Working Group on GMOs. http://bmg.gv.at/home/Schwerpunkte/Gentech-
nik/Fachinformation_Allgemeines/SCAR_Collaborative_Working_Group_Risk_
Research_on_GMOs_. Accessed 25 May 2016.
Schneider, M. and Gill, B. (2016). Biotechnology versus Agroecology: Entrenchments and
Surprise at a 2030 Forecast Scenario Workshop. Science and Public Policy 43(1):
74-84.
Schurman, R. and Munro, W.A. (2010). Fighting for the Future of Food: Activists versus
Agribusiness in the Struggle over Biotechnology. Minneapolis, US: University of
Minnesota Press.
Snell, C., Bernheim, A., Bergé, J.-B., Kuntz, M., Pascal, G., Paris, A. and Ricroch, A.E.
(2012). Assessment of the Health Impact of GM Plant Diets in Long-Term and Mul-
tigenerational Animal Feeding Trials: A Literature Review. Food and Chemical Toxi-
cology 50(3-4): 1134-1148.
Sparrow, P., Broer, I., E Hood, E., Eversole, K., Hartung, F. and Schiemann, J. (2013). Risk
Assessment and Regulation of Molecular Farming - A Comparison between Europe
and US. Current Pharmaceutical Design 19(31): 5513-5530.
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Stean-Dewenter, I. and ies, C. (2005). Land-
scape Perspectives on Agricultural Intensication and Biodiversity – Ecosystem Ser-
vice Management. Ecology Letters 8: 857-874.
79
Stakeholder engagement: identifying future directions for GMO research
Twardowski, T. and Małyska, A. (2015). Uninformed and Disinformed Society and the
GMO Market. Trends in Biotechnology 33(1): 1-3.
van Capelle, C., Schrader, S. and Arpaia, S. (2016). Selection of Focal Earthworm Species
as Non-Target Soil Organisms for Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically
Modied Plants. Science of the Total Environment 548-549: 360-369.
van den Hoven, J. (2013). Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Inno-
vation: Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible
Research and Innovation. Publications Oce of the European Union.
Yang, Y.T. and Chen, B. (2016). Governing GMOs in the USA: Science, Law and Public
Health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96: 1851-1855.
... In particular, insecticidal and virus-resistant crops could help to keep pests and diseases in check, to lower the chemical pesticide load in the environment, to support complementary IPM tactics such as the active use of biocontrol agents and, therefore, to increase reliance on natural pest control. However, the reduction of pesticide use alone does not guarantee that natural pest control in the presence of GM crops is maintained or enhanced, and the need to assess the role that GM plants might play in different IPM systems was highlighted by Menozzi et al. (2017). In order to verify how likely Bt crops might fit well in IPM programmes, we need to consider if these varieties can be successfully managed in the context of the main principles of IPM (i.e. ...
... The possible environmental impacts of GM crops and the way to assess the relative risks have been quite extensively debated (Arpaia, 2010). A recent survey indicated that biodiversity preservation has been the predominant sub-topic (58%) in the projects studying implications of GM crop cultivations in Europe (Menozzi et al., 2017). The effect on non-target organisms was specifically analysed in 25% of those projects. ...
... In particular, insecticidal and virus-resistant crops could help to keep pests and diseases in check, to lower the chemical pesticide load in the environment, to support complementary IPM tactics such as the active use of biocontrol agents and, therefore, to increase reliance on natural pest control. However, the reduction of pesticide use alone does not guarantee that natural pest control in the presence of GM crops is maintained or enhanced, and the need to assess the role that GM plants might play in different IPM systems was highlighted by Menozzi et al. (2017). In order to verify how likely Bt crops might fit well in IPM programmes, we need to consider if these varieties can be successfully managed in the context of the main principles of IPM (i.e. ...
... The possible environmental impacts of GM crops and the way to assess the relative risks have been quite extensively debated (Arpaia, 2010). A recent survey indicated that biodiversity preservation has been the predominant sub-topic (58%) in the projects studying implications of GM crop cultivations in Europe (Menozzi et al., 2017). The effect on non-target organisms was specifically analysed in 25% of those projects. ...
... Stakeholders' involvement is also increasingly used to derive overviews of relevant policy issues (Van Ginkel et al., 2020) and to set sustainability sciences into research projects (Hagemann et al., 2020;Menozzi et al., 2017;Neßhöver et al., 2013), as it raises the quality and significance of research by contemplating more thorough information inputs (Reed, 2008). In a recent analysis of the key policy questions for European agricultural and rural policies, used expert sampling to select who could provide the best information to achieve the study objectives, such as people who advocate, supervise, or guide agricultural-policy processes in high-level institutions. ...
Article
Full-text available
Food security and environmental sustainability are joint global challenges that require to be solved together. A complex policy framework is needed to tackle this conundrum as policy coherence (PC) is fundamental but extremely challenging. This analysis, after stressing the importance of solving jointly the challenges of producing enough food to feed a growing population while preserving the climate and the environment, discusses some issues related to the PC approach that should be followed. Within and between coherence problems are assessed and discussed and governance problems related to the PC approach are presented. Key points for a likely approach to PC include goal-based governance grounded on the analytical analysis of synergies and trade-offs.
... Early involvement would not only result in serious games that are fun and easy to understand but also helps researchers and policymakers to identify complex problems, constraining conditions, and feasible solutions to policy-relevant sustainability issues where actions are needed. In particular, the inclusion of a larger diversity of stakeholders can lead to both a greater expansion of personal views and knowledge and a commom understanding of the research gaps that need to be addressed (Menozzi et al., 2017). Stakeholder involvement is therefore key to successful game development and implementation (Barreteau et al., 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Addressing the global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss requires the widespread adoption of sustainable agricultural practices such as agroforestry. In many Sub-Saharan African countries, however, agroforestry adoption rates remain low among small-scale farmers, with insufficient knowledge about the benefits being a major barrier. To close this knowledge gap and increase farmers’ motivation to plant different tree species on their farms, this study applies a Role-playing game (RPG) as an awareness-raising tool. 72 small-scale farmers from Rwanda played the RPG and participated in pre- and post-game surveys. A comparison of responses before and after playing demonstrates that the RPG increased farmers’ knowledge and attitude toward most tree-related benefits. Moreover, playing the game significantly strengthened farmers’ motivation to plant more tree species on their farms. The findings were supported by debriefing results, confirming that RPGs are an effective tool to raise farmers’ awareness and motivation on sustainable land use management.
... Accordingly, charges of bias have been made against them [17][18][19][20] and their results must be used with precaution.) In line with the findings of Menozzi et al. [21], broader public engagement appears to evoke a broader set of concerns, and effective forms of public engagement may be used to identify research needs on the socio-economic effects of the possible development and use of new GMOs. ...
Article
Full-text available
In Norway, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are regulated through the Gene Technology Act of 1993, which has received international attention for its inclusion of non-safety considerations. In 2017, the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board triggered a process to revise the Act that included a public consultation and resulted in the “Proposal for relaxation.” Using poststructuralist discourse analysis, we critically analyze the premises and processes through which the proposal for relaxation was developed—including the public consultation—to understand the range of stakeholder concerns and how these concerns shaped the final proposal. We find that the proposal does not include all concerns equally. The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board’s privileging of technological matters and its preference for tier-based regulation skewed the proposal in a way that reduced broader societal concerns to technological definitions and marginalized discussion of the social, cultural, and ethical issues raised by new gene technologies. To prevent such narrowing of stakeholder concerns in the future, we propose Latour’s model for political economy as a tool to gauge the openness of consultations for biotechnology regulation.
... This teaching module (topics included in Table 1) is an integrative and multidisciplinary proposal [5] that focuses on the TF on the market nowadays, through a scientific, technological and societal approach (STS) [2,4]. Transgenic foods were discussed in order to include the perspective of objective information (general topics) [6][7][8][9][10] and the perspective of uncertain information (transversal themes) [11][12][13][14][15]. ...
... Asking citizens or respondents to participate in thought processes and to provide input might result in original ideas [8], novel insights, richer input [2,12] and a better fit between the research and the underlying values and needs of citizens [7,8]. Moreover, participatory methods allow for the inclusion of a diversity of stakeholders, such as consumer organisations, industry, farming organisations, civil society, NGOs, and policy makers [12,40]. Overall, the findings of participatory research can provide a better reflection of real life, as citizens are capable of providing more authentic and unique experiences that would not be gathered through other methods. ...
Article
Full-text available
A trend is visible in the food literature showing an increasing number of publications on studies that incorporate some form of participant engagement, such as citizen science and community-based participatory research. This “participation trend” will inevitably affect the scientific field of food behaviour research. This new trend is however not only associated with advantages, and a critical reflection on both the advantages and disadvantages is needed. The current article is a position paper that contributes to the literature in two main ways. First, participation is still in the developmental stage. Many different forms, methods and definitions are used. By providing a structured overview of a variety of participatory methods derived from a focused search of the literature on food behaviour, we aim to clarify the relationships between the various forms of participation methods. Second, the involvement of citizens in research is increasingly calling for novel research methods (e.g., voluntary recruitment and active involvement), which may be accompanied by both advantages and disadvantages. We add to the literature by developing a framework that indicates the advantages and disadvantages of participatory methods in food behaviour research. Our study highlights the relevance of differentiating the goal of the researcher (efficiency versus engagement) and the role of citizens (collecting versus creating), thus implying a trade-off between cost-effectiveness and involvement, as well as between data richness and data quality. Our work is a first effort to create structure and guidance within a new area. Our efforts could be used in future research aimed at developing more extensive protocols and tools for the application of participation in research, thereby offering a controlled manner to ensure that research stays abreast of our changing society.
... The status of several new, targeted mutagenesis techniques -allowing a mutation of some nucleotides on a targeted site or through temporary change of DNA reading -is one of the critical points of the debate while random mutagenesis, widely used since the 1930s to produce thousands of plant genotypes, is not under the scope of the European GMO regulation (Annex The scientific categorization of NBTs by experts and stakeholders from public funding agencies is an essential resource for European and French legislators trying to understand the complexity of the techniques (Menozzi et al., 2017). However, Renn (1998) pointed out, the social perception of new techniques is also a crucial factor in their acceptance and use. ...
Article
The rapid development of new genetic breeding techniques is accompanied by a polarized debate around their risks. Research on the public perception of these techniques lags behind scientific developments. This study tests a method for revealing laypeople’s perceptions and attitudes about different genetic techniques. The objectives are to enable laypeople to understand the key principles of new genetic breeding techniques and to permit a comparison of their modes of classification with those of scientific experts. The combined method of a free sorting task and focus groups showed that the participants distinguished the techniques that did not induce any change in DNA sequence, and applied two different logics to classify the other breeding techniques: a Cartesian logic and a naturalistic logic with a distinct set of values. The lay categorization differed substantially from current scientific categorizations of genetic breeding techniques. These findings have implications for food innovation policy and genetically modified organism legislation.
Article
Full-text available
From 2006 through 2015, a research project on Durable Resistance in potato against Phytophthora (DuRPh) was carried out at Wageningen University and Research Centre. Its objective was to develop a proof of principle for durable resistance against late blight by cisgenesis. This public-funded project aimed at stimulating research on genetic modification and public debate on innovative genetic techniques. It was decided to clone and transfer late blight resistance (R) genes of crossable wild potato species (cisgenes) by Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation without non-potato genes. A stack of multiple R genes were planned to be inserted into established varieties, thereby creating a dynamic variety in which the composition of the stacks may vary over space and time. Cisgenic plants were selected based on the expression of all inserted R genes and trueness-to-type. Within the project, 13 R genes from wild potato species were genetically mapped and three of them were cloned. Four varieties were transformed with one to three R genes. This was initially done using kanamycin resistance provided by a selectable marker gene of synthetic origin in order to quickly test the performance and stability of the introduced R genes and stacked R gene combinations. Once the functioning thereof was confirmed, marker-free transformations were conducted; thus, true cisgenic events were selected. The results about the different R genes, their chromosomal location, their specificity, the background dependence, the maximum size of a stack, its regeneration time and associated somaclonal variation frequency and its stability were studied. After selection and characterisation in the laboratory, the best cisgenic events were assessed in field trials for late blight resistance. This showed that inserted R genes were capable of turning a susceptible variety into a resistant one. Maximising longevity of the resistance was assured through resistance management research. It was shown that stacking of multiple R genes and monitoring how to deploy these stacks spatially and temporally could reduce fungicide use by over 80%. Communications through media and field demonstrations were manifold to allow public and policymakers to decide if cisgenesis is an acceptable tool to make potato farming more sustainable. Future deployment of the DuRPh strategy will depend largely on its status as a genetically modified crop or its exemption thereof. Worldwide near eradication of late blight would increase global annual potato production by close to 80 million tons, thereby contributing considerably to the needed additional global future food supply.
Article
Full-text available
Socio-economic considerations are included in the regulatory frameworks on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) of many countries. This is a reflection of an increasing interest in and recognition of the necessity to consider a broader range of issues when conducting a GMO risk assessment. At the same time, there are discussions about how socio-economic considerations can be identified and how their assessment can be carried out. To provide an understanding of the advances achieved so far, we describe the state of the art of existing biosafety institutional frameworks, legislation and policies with provisions on socio-economic considerations. We analyse the scope of the socio-economic considerations that have been included, the methodological options taken and the role of participatory processes and stakeholders involvement in the GMO-related decision-making. Since many of the countries that have legislation for assessing socio-economic considerations lack implementation experience, we provide an analysis of how implementation has evolved in Norway with the intention to illustrate that the inclusion of socio-economic considerations might be based on a learning process. Norway was the first country to include broader issues in its GMO assessment process, and is at present one of the countries with the most experience on implementation of these issues. Finally, we emphasise that there is a great need for training on how to perform assessments of socio-economic considerations, as well as reflection on possible ways for inclusion of participatory processes.
Article
Full-text available
The era of ‘IPM?’ Integrated pest management (IPM) arose as a solution to problems associated with the indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides to control pests, diseases and weeds, more than 50 years ago. Elegant solutions have been found to the majority of problems, based on meticulous scientific work and discoveries related to pest (sensu lato) biological properties, ecology, ecosystem function, and technological innovations. Uptake of these methods and application by growers has lagged far behind, despite ambitious government programmes to reduce pesticide use, and political support to IPM. The European Union has taken this support to a new level by passing a directive (2009/128/EC), which effectively requires Member States to ensure that all professional growers follow the principles of IPM, as of 1 January 2014. Are we finally adopting the principles of IPM in plant protection?
Article
Purpose Following a negative attitude of consumers toward genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the spaces left by the labeling legislation on GMOs of different countries, some retailers and processors introduced their own non-GMO standards, with the intention of avoiding the presence of GMOs in their products. This paper aims to understand how the implementation of these new retailer-driven standards affects governance structures along the supply chain and the determinants of such change focusing on transaction cost approach (TCA) vs resource-based view (RBV). Design/methodology/approach The non-GMO introduction is investigated as a case study in the poultry industry of France and Italy. The case relies on data primarily collected from interviews with the main actors at five stages of the supply chain from the retailer up to animal feed and crop production. Findings Findings indicate that the introduction of non-GMO products had different impacts on the transactions along the supply chain, generally leading to more integrated relationships. Theoretical relevance depends on the observed transaction and the type of governance structure considered. Interestingly, only RBV explains the shift toward hierarchical governance when this is observed. Originality/value This paper contributes to the empirical literature highlighting the upstream effects caused by the adoption of new standards. On the theoretical side, building on Conner and Prahalad’s (1996) seminal work and leveraging on the concepts of opportunism, “potential” superior knowledge and strategic importance of an activity, this research suggests a comparative framework for identifying governance structures and their determinants under TCA and RBV.
Chapter
Introduction The European approach to regulating genetically modified (GM) crops and foods has had unsettling consequences. It demonstrates that industrialists, politicians, scientific experts, and national regulatory authorities have failed to adequately address public concerns. These concerns arise from public awareness of the uncertainties and risks, and from lack of confidence in the studies performed by scientists and regulators. The concerns also reflect differences in perceptions and values, which have been shaped by recent history involving BSE, dioxin pollution, and food irradiation. The expert committees that drafted European regulations on GM agriculture focused exclusively on potential safety concerns and designed the regulatory system accordingly. The experts targeted scientific issues such as the development of resistant “superbugs” and “superweeds,” as well as adverse effects on human and animal health. In contrast, the concerns of the public, NGOs, and environmentalists centered on longer-term environmental consequences, consumer choice, impacts on traditional farming, and other societal issues such as the influence of industry in the regulatory process and commercial pressures. In addition, food is a symbolic lifestyle factor, and familiarity with food products is important to European consumers including the Dutch citizens. Thus, the current European regulatory regime, which emphasizes technical expertise and narrowly ranks food safety as its top concern, has proven an inadequate approach to meeting public concerns. These problems have been apparent in the Netherlands since 1996 when the Dutch government allowed the importation and limited processing of Monsanto's glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on the basis of scientific studies that showed the product to be safe for the environment and human health
Book
This book addresses the issues and methods involved in governing risks posed by genetically modified (GM) agriculture. It examines the evolution of policies intended to ensure the safety of GM crops and food products in the United States and Europe and the regulatory approaches and other social controls employed to protect human health, the environment, conventional farming and foods, and the interests and rights of consumers. Discussion encompasses the cultural, political, and economic forces that shape the design and application of the methods of risk governance, as well as other contextual features such as the influence of multinational companies seeking acceptance of their GM ventures. This discussion also examines the influence of the dynamic public discourse fostered by progressive concepts of risk governance and the approaches taken to meet its demands for transparency, public participation, and appropriate consideration of public perceptions and values despite conflicting views of experts.
Article
Although a few arable crops and agronomic traits will likely dominate commercial varieties for the foreseeable future, with many being stacked together, more quality traits and specialty crops are being introduced into the pipeline.
Article
Controversy surrounds the production and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Proponents argue that GMO food sources represent the only viable solution to food shortages in an ever-growing global population. Science reports no harm from GMO use and consumption so far. Opponents fear the potentially negative impact that GMO development and use could have on the environment and consumers, and are concerned about the lack of data on the long-term effects of GMO use. We discuss the development of GMO food sources, the history of legislation and policy for the labeling requirements of GMO food products, and the health, environmental, and legal rationale for and against GMO food labeling. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food with GMOs within a coordinated framework of federal agencies. Despite mounting scientific evidence that GMO foods are substantially equivalent to traditionally bred food sources, debate remains over the appropriateness of GMO food labeling. In fact, food manufacturers have mounted a First-Amendment challenge against Vermont's passage of a law that requires GMO labeling. Mandatory GMO labeling is not supported by science. Compulsory GMO labels may not only hinder the development of agricultural biotechnology, but may also exacerbate the misconception that GMOs endanger people's health.