Innovations in Biotechnology:

Public Perceptions & Cultural Attitudes

Drew L. Kershen

Earl Sneed Centennial Prof. Univ. of Oklahoma Law School

Copyright 2004, Drew L. Kershen, all rights reserved

Introduction Agricultural Biotechnology – the debate is

not about facts, information, policy compromises

Contending paradigms about humankind, nature, food, science, trade, intellectual property

Galileo/Ptolemy; Darwin/Lysenko; Borlaug/Ho

Agricultural Biotechnology – either accepted and used or stigmatized and shunned

Historical Examples China – Treasure Fleets

1405-1433– Technological superiority

– Voyages of exploration Admiral Zheng He vs

Confucians – power struggle

Stability, purity, precaution – Confucian virtues

Within 8 decades, China gave up its technological superiority to Portugal

1789 United States Constitution – Progress of Science and Useful Arts

1793 Patent Office Stable legal protection for

inventions & discoveries Diamond v. Chakrabarty

(1980); J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. (2001)

Development as Freedom

The Nature of Agricultural Biotechnology

Europe– Different in kind– New laws, regulations

and agencies – the technology itself

Technology assessment – determine the future

European Political leadership – tepid or hostile

United States– No fundamental

difference – No new regulatory issues

– Same laws, agencies – the products of the technology

No a priori determination – the future decides

Political leadership generally supportive – calming

Precautionary Principle or Precautionary Approach

Europe, precautionary principle– Hypothetical or imagined

risks– Risks govern, benefits

ignored– Burden to proof – prove no

risks, no harm Risk – zero tolerance –

pervasive distrust Food purity – pollution,

contamination, segregation – categorical imperative, not risk analysis

US, precautionary approach– Identifiable harms;

scientific evaluation

– Burden to prove safe – non-discrimination

Benefit/Risk Balance – pervasive trust

Food safety – safe, nutritious foods – culinary arts, not the essence of the

food, makes the meal

Food Labels Europe

– Process-based mandatory labelling

– Consumer confidence– Consumer choice

Regulation, not markets Stigma

– Food scares – food ingredient avoidance

– Additional burdens and costs – rent-seeking behaviour

United States– Material facts –

mandatory– Freedom not to speak– Voluntary labels – not

false or misleading Niche Markets

– Differentiate products– Niche consumers pay for

the additional information Consumer choice

– GMO free– Organic production

Atlantic Separation International Fora

International Fora– Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety– Codex Alimentarius– FAO/WHO

Public policy choices– Prohibition – The European reality– Precaution – The European paradigm– Permissive – The Developing World ?– Promotional – The United States paradigm

Going ForwardRisks for Europe

EU Domestic Risk– Bleak Future in a hostile

climate– Industry -- Loss of

competitiveness – Next wave of technology

– Loss of scientific and entrepreneurial expertise

US at no risk – The paradigm does not

govern American production

– The NAFTA markets – dual chains of commodity trade

EU International Risk– Development as

Freedom – food security, demographics, technology transfer

– China & India Technological capacity Large domestic

markets Domestic Public policy

Europe at risk to China & India

The Paradigm Gambit Scientific Ignorance, Ideological

Motives, Moral Risk Historical Choice

– China – 1433– Future Risk – the outcome in several

decades– Science, technology, trade flows equally

from East to West as West to East

References L. Levathes, When China Ruled the Seas: The

Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1994)

A. Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999)

EC, Towards a Strategic Vision of Life Science and Biotechnology: A Consultation Document, COM (2001) 454 Final (04.09.2001)

VIB, Safety of Genetically Engineered Crops (June 5, 2000) < http://www.vib.be >.

References Nat’l Econ. Res. Assoc., Economic

Appraisal of Options for Extension of Legislation on GM Labeling (London, May 2001) < http://www.nera.com >

R. Paarlberg, The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries (John Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001)

UNDP Report 2001, Making New Technologies Work for Human Development (Oxford. Univ. Press, 2001)

References Asian Development Bank, Agricultural

Biotechnology, Poverty Reduction, and Food Security (May 2001)

D. Kershen (1999) Biotechnology: An essay on the academy, cultural attitudes and public policy, AgBioForum 2(2), 137-146 (Spring 1999)

D. Kershen (2000) The Concept of Natural: Implications for Biotechnology Regulation, AgBioForum 3(1), 321-326 (Winter 2000)