1 / 14

Accountability and Risk Governance - A Scenario-informed Reflection on European Regulation of GMOs

Accountability and Risk Governance - A Scenario-informed Reflection on European Regulation of GMOs. Laura Drott Lukas Jochum. Just a short introduction. Uncertain risks Imaginable hazards with which society has no or only limited experience

erv
Download Presentation

Accountability and Risk Governance - A Scenario-informed Reflection on European Regulation of GMOs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accountability and Risk Governance - A Scenario-informed Reflection on European Regulation of GMOs Laura Drott Lukas Jochum

  2. Just a short introduction... • Uncertain risks • Imaginable hazards with which society has no or only limited experience • Uncertain whether the ‘thing’ in question constitues a risk to humans and/or the environment vs

  3. Just a short introduction... (continued) • GMOs • Short for genetically modified organisms • Alleged benefits include pest resistance, drought resistance, higher yields, and many more... • Are GMOs uncertain risks? • Yes, because society lacks experience... • Suspicions of harmful consequences to human health/enviroment remain  uncertainty

  4. Our case study of an uncertain risk... • Bt-11 is authorised in the European Union (EU) in the 90s • Bt-11 is a gm-maize produced by Syngenta • Authorised under several ‘authorisation streams’ • Cultivation • Sweet maize as food • Food and feed additives

  5. ...so, imagine the following scenario... • In the future new food allergies suddenly emerge • Allergies are linked to the consumption of Bt-11 • Food scares and consumer protests follow • High media coverage • EU Member States impose national bans • Public demands investigations

  6. ...so we asked ourselves... • Who would be accountable to the European public in such a scenario? • What do we mean by public accountability? • “A is accountable to B, when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct.” (Schedler, 1999, p.13) • Those who govern are accountable to those who are governed. (Joss, 2001)

  7. How does the EU governance system for GMOs function? A brief glimpse... GM Applicant EU Member State Member State European Commission Member State Member State According to the legal text… EFSA/Predecessor European Commission Standing Committee Council

  8. How did the authorisation procedure actually play out for Bt-11... Other Member States voiced objections Syngenta EU Member State Member State Despite Member States concerns, scientific opinions were favourable European Commission Member State Member State EFSA/Predecessor European Commission Commission granted approval Standing Committee Unable to take decision Council

  9. Quick recap - the scenario again… • In the future new food allergies suddenly emerge • Allergies are linked to the consumption of Bt-11 • Food scares and consumer protests follow • High media coverage about incidents • EU Member States impose national bans • Public demands investigations Who would be accountable to the European public in such a scenario?

  10. What can we conclude thus far? Can the actors involved be held accountable? • Syngenta • No, because the company adhered to all relevant legal requirements • European institutions approved the company’s risk assessment • EFSA • Difficult, due to its largely independent status (no forum available) • “Independent scientific advisor” • Advisory function only, not responsible for final decision • Commission lacks legal supervision • Public consultation forums

  11. What can we conclude thus far? Can the actors involved be held accountable? • Member States • Difficult, due to likely change in office of responsible national minister • Council • No, because no actual decision was taken in the Council • Commission • Difficult, due to likely change in office of responsible Commissioners • European Parliament’s interogation thus unlikely • Commission not obliged to consider public comments, only EFSA’s opinion has to be taken into account

  12. Overall conclusion • Conclusion • Each actor in the authorisation process can at best be partly held accountable. • Each actor is able to refer to its compliance with the legal rules and procedures of GMO regulation at the time of authorisation • The ‘blame’ shifts from one actor to the next • Overall accountability cannot be established, only piecemeal accountability exists

  13. ‘Academic take-away’ • Organised Irresponsibility • The authorisation of Bt-11 is a prime example of “organised irrespossibility” (Beck, 1992) • Ulrich Beck coined the concept of the risk society • Risk society describes the process with which modern societies deal with risks • GMO authorisation procedure unable to deal with long-term impacts of uncertain risks Even though sophisticated decision-making structures are in place, no one can be held accountable if uncertain risks should materialise

More Related