Genetically Modified Organisms and Democracy
| Author | Niall Clancy |
| Position | Senior Sophister Law, Trinity College, Dublin |
| Pages | 125-154 |
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED
ORGANISMS
AND
DEMOCRACY
NIALL
CLANCY*
If
the
intricate
balance
of
nature
is
capable
of
instilling
respect
not
to
say awe
in
a
relatively
untutored
mind
such
as
my
own,
it
is
small
wonder that
persons
of
elevated
sensibility
such
as
the
Applicant
express
deep
misgivings
at
what
they
perceive
as
experimental
tampering
at
the
heart
of
this
delicate
balance.
I
Genetically
modified
food
has
become
a
rallying
point
in
a
debate
far
greater
than
the
biotechnology industry
could
ever
have
imagined.
The
industry
has
found
itself
waving
a
flag above
a
battlefield
where
global
corporations
and
institutions,
governments,
NGOs and
the
public
wage war
over
the
environment,
traditional values,
democracy
and
world inequality.
Different
groups have different
names
for
the
conflict
but
in
general
they
are
united
under
the
unfortunate
term
'globalisation'.
No
international
protestor's
handbook
would
be
complete without
a
chapter
on
lack
of
transparency
within
global
institutions.
A
sizable portion
of
the public
feels
alienated
from the
processes
that
are
changing
our
world.
These
institutions
are
perceived
by
some
as
protecting
and
promoting
the
interests
of
large
corporations.
How
far
has
the
EU
gone
to
increase
transparency
and
public
involvement
in
the
regulation
of
genetically
modified organisms
('GMOs')?
Biotechnology
has been
proclaimed
as
the
semiconductor
industry
of
the
21St
century.
The
value
of
the
industry
to the
European
economy has
been
recognised
at
the
highest
levels.
The
EU
does not
want
to fall
behind
the
US
in
the
early
stages
of
this
industry.
At
the
same time,
it
cannot
afford
to
steam-roll
over
public
sentiment.
The new
regime
represents
a
balancing
of
these
two
concerns.
The
use
of
science
as
the
objective
neutral has
proved
an
attractive
method
by
which
the
EU
can
distance
itself
politically
from
the
debate
on
GMOs.
However,
it
is
contended
here
that
science
is
not neutral
and that
Senior Sophister
Law,
Trinity
College,
Dublin.
Watson
v.
EPA
and
Monsanto
[2000]
2
IR
454,
per
O'Sullivan
J.
©
Niall
Clancy
and
Dublin
University Law
Society
Trinity
College
Law
Review
environmental
risk assessment should
involve
a
greater
degree
of
public
involvement
to
compensate
for
this.
Traditional
views
of
environmental
decision-making
are
criticised
and
it
is
argued
that
reflexive
law,
while
giving more
power
to
the
local
public would
also
increase
the
effectiveness
of
environmental
decision-making.
The
critique
examines
the
social
factors
at
work
in
environmental
debates framed
in
purely scientific
terms.
It
shows
how
no
decision-making
process
is
immune
from social,
cultural
and
contextual
factors.
Environmental
problems
are
defined
by
the
public.
It
argues
accordingly
that
the
public
should
have
a
greater
role
in
environmental risk
assessment.
Looked
at in
this
light,
the
precautionary
principle
and
many
of
the
other
innovations
in
the
new
GMO
regime
seem
nothing
more
than
token offerings
to
public
involvement.
The
examination
of
reflexive
law
argues
the
necessity
of
increasing public
involvement
in
environmental
decision-making
from
the
point
of
view
of
effectiveness.
The command
and control
systems
of
regulation
are
failing
to
deal
effectively
with
environmental
problems.
A
more
flexible
and
dynamic
system
is
required.
Apart from
environmental democracy
concerns,
the
liability
issues
arising
out
of
the
escape
of
commercial
GMOs
on
to
neighbours' land
are
also
dealt
with
below.
The
focus
of
discussion
here
is
on
Part
C
(commercial
releases).
The
examination
concludes that
the
law
is
uncertain
on
how
to
deal
with
these
issues.
Uncertainty
in
the
law
will
hinder
the
development
of
a
biotechnology
industry
in
Europe.
In
attempting
to
balance
public
sensitivities against
GMOs with
the
need
for
a
competitive
biotechnology
industry,
the
EU
may have
failed
to
do
either.
A
possible solution
to
the
EU's
problems
is
investigated
in
the
final
part
of
this
paper.
It
involves subsuming
GMO
agriculture
into
the
planning
system.
A
model
is
proposed
that
would
embody
the
'environmental
democracy'
ideals
mentioned
above
in
a
reflexive
system
of
regulation.
The
advantages
to the
model
are
pointed
out before
possible
legal
problems, the
compatibility
of
GMO
agriculture
regulation,
and
the
planning system
are
examined.
Genetically
Modified
Organisms
The
history
of
GMOs
goes
back
thousands
of
years
to when
farmers
planted
seeds
saved
from domesticated
crops.
Foods
were
manipulated
through
the
use
of
yeast
and
fermentation.
Some
naturalists
and
farmers
then
began
to
recognise
hybrids,
plants
produced
through
natural
breeding
between
related
varieties
of
plants.
At
the
beginning
of
the
twentieth
[Vol.
6
To continue reading
Request your trial