Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- 13 The Risk Analysis Framework and Biosafety Policy
- 14 The Precautionary Principle as a Barrier to GMO Risk Analysis: Elicitation of Experts’ Viewpoints
- 15 How Do Socio-Political Disputes Concerning GMOs Influence Decision-Making in Developing Countries?
- 16 Biosafety Communication: Beyond Risk Communication
- 17 The Role of Mass Media and Lobbies in the Formulation of GMO Regulations
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
16 - Biosafety Communication: Beyond Risk Communication
from Part III - Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2017
Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- 13 The Risk Analysis Framework and Biosafety Policy
- 14 The Precautionary Principle as a Barrier to GMO Risk Analysis: Elicitation of Experts’ Viewpoints
- 15 How Do Socio-Political Disputes Concerning GMOs Influence Decision-Making in Developing Countries?
- 16 Biosafety Communication: Beyond Risk Communication
- 17 The Role of Mass Media and Lobbies in the Formulation of GMO Regulations
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
Summary
In many developing countries open access to biosafety-related reports is ineffectively ensured and public participation in decision-making processes is hardly promoted. Recent studies indicate lack of transparency and public consultation in the GMO approval process among the most important triggers of public concerns. This chapter aims to propose a more open and participatory approach to decision making about GMO releases. In this framework, risk communication is seen as an integral component of biosafety risk analysis and includes the two distinct but complementary functions of access to information and public participation. Adoption of a participatory approach is suggested, the advantages and challenges of which are critically considered in light of the experience gained with previous communication strategies. Considering that the promotion of public participation in decision-making processes exceeds the function of risk communication the authors propose to adopt the term 'biosafety communication' and describe the major features of the proposed approach. If correctly utilised biosafety communication can ensure a smoother implementation of biosafety regulation and contribute to greater stakeholders' buy-in and wider public's acceptance of biosafety-related decisions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 187 - 199Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Acunzo, M. et al. (2014). Communication for Rural Development Sourcebook. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Arantes, O. et al. (2011). Desenvolvimento de comunicação estratégica sobre biossegurança de plantas geneticamente modificadas – o caso do projeto LAC – Biosafety no Brasil. Aguariúna, SP: Embrapa Meio Ambiente, p. 33.Google Scholar
Australian Government (2013). The Risk Analysis Framework 2013. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.Google Scholar
Blancke, S. et al. (2015). Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science 20(7), 414–418.Google Scholar
Brandenberg, O. et al. (2011). Biosafety Resource Book (5 volumes). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Bremer, S. et al. (2015). Responsible techno-innovation in aquaculture: employing ethical engagement to explore attitudes to GM salmon in Northern Europe. Aquaculture 437, 370–381.Google Scholar
Bubela, T. et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology 27(6), 514–518.Google Scholar
CAC (2003). Report of the Twenty-Sixth Session. Rome. 30 June–7 July 2003. Appendix IV. Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
CAC (2008). Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual. Eighteenth edition. Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
CAC (2011). Working principles for risk analysis for application in the framework of the Codex Alimentarius. In Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual. Twentieth edition. Rome: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.Google Scholar
Canavari, M. and Nayga, R. (2009). On consumers’ willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food. Applied Economics 41(1), 125–137.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1871). Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Casanoves, M. et al. (2015). Knowledge and attitudes towards biotechnology of elementary education preservice teachers: the first Spanish experience. International Journal of Science Education 37(17), 2923–2941.Google Scholar
Chee, Y. L. and Lim, L. L. (2005). Public Participation in the Implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, Third World Network Biosafety Briefing. [Online]. Available from www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/1410148856539c28e5.pdfGoogle Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. [Online]. Available from www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cordo, A. (2008). Nuevos métodos de comunicación: ciencia a la mexicana. [Online]. Available from www.surysur.net/nuevos-metodos-de-comunicacion-ciencia-a-la-mexicana/Google Scholar
EC (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation: Europe's Ability Responds to Societal Challenges. [Online]. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
EC (2013). Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union; Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
FAO (2001). Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
FAO (2004). Participation: Sharing Our Resources. Informal Working Group on Participatory Approaches and Methods to Support Sustainable Livelihoods and Food Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
FAO (2008). GM Food Safety Assessment: Tools for Trainers. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
FAO (2011). Agricultural Biotechnologies in Developing Countries: Options and Opportunities in Crops, Forestry, Livestock, Fisheries and Agro-industry to Face the Challenges of Food Insecurity and Climate Change (ABDC-10), 2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (1623). The Assayer, translated by Drake, S. and O'Malley, C. D.. In The Controversy on the Comets of 1618 (1960). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. et al. (2011). The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology 29(2), 113–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature 402 (Suppl.), C81–C84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularisation: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20, 519–539.Google Scholar
Kazana, V. et al. (2015). Public attitudes towards the use of transgenic forest trees: a cross-country pilot survey. [Online]. www.sisef.it/iforest/contents?id=ifor1441-008Google Scholar
Lucht, J. M. (2015). Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses 7(8), 4254–4281.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Carro-Ripalda, S., eds. (2016). Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global Lessons from GM Crops. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
National Science Board (2004). Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Chapter 7.Google Scholar
Nielsen, A. P. et al. (2004). Involving the public – participatory methods and democratic ideals. Global Bioethics 17, 191–201.Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. C. and Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96(10), 1767–1778.Google Scholar
Oughton, D. (2005). The promises and pitfalls of participation. In Biotechnology-Ethics. An Introduction, ed. Landerweerd, L. et al. Florence: Angelo Pontecorboli Editore, pp. 305–313.Google Scholar
Owen, R. et al. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6), 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center (2015). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. [Online]. Available from www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ruane, J. and Sonnino, A. (2006). Results from the FAO Biotechnology Forum: Background and Dialogue on Selected Issues. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. and Sonnino, A. (2011). Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries and their possible contribution to food security. Journal of Biotechnology 156, 356–363.Google Scholar
Scholderer, J. and Frewer, L. J. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy 2, 125–157.Google Scholar
Sensi, A. et al. (2009). Building Biosafety Capacities: FAO's Experience and Outlook. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Sharry, S. (2013). Communicating biosafety – a new approach for agrobiotechnology adoption. Agrotechnology 2, e107.Google Scholar
Sinemus, K. and Egelhofer, M. (2007). Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: will it change public opinion? Biotechnology Journal 2, 1041–1146.Google Scholar
Sorgo, A. et al. (2011). Knowledge about and acceptance of genetically modified organisms among pre-service teachers: a comparative study of Turkey and Slovenia. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 14(4). [Online]. Available from www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-34582011000400005Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J. et al. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9), 1568–1580.Google Scholar
Traynor, P. et al. (2007). Strategic approaches to informing the public about biotechnology in Latin America. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 10(2), 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNECE (2003). Guidelines on access to information, public participation and access to justice with respect to genetically modified organisms. MP.PP/2003/3, KIEV.CONF/2003/INF/7.Google Scholar
UNECE (2005). Almaty Declaration. Report of the Second Meeting of the Parties. Almaty, Kazakhstan.Google Scholar
UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit (2006). A comparative analysis of experiences and lessons from the UNEP-GEF biosafety projects. [Online]. Available from www.unep.ch/biosafety/old_site/development/devdocuments/UNEPGEFBiosafety_comp_analysisDec2006.pdfGoogle Scholar
UNESCO (2006). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. [Online]. Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdfGoogle Scholar
Whitty, C. J. M. et al. (2013) Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops. Nature 497, 31–33.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by