Social Philosophy Today 30:29-45 (2014)
AbstractThe use of Genetic Modification in food is the subject of deep political disagreement. Much of the disagreement involves different perceptions of the kinds of risks posed by pursuing GM food, and how these are to be tolerated and regulated. As a result, a primary institutional site of GM food politics is regulatory agencies tasked with risk assessment and regulation. Locating GM food politics in administrative areas of governance regimes produces unique challenges of democratic legitimacy, conventionally secured through legislative channels. In particular, debate over the ends of a society’s policy on GM food inevitably continues in these institutional locations, despite conventional instrumental understandings of administrative legitimacy resting on effective application of ‘ends-means’ norms. This paper assesses the two major regulatory frameworks currently applied to GM food—the ‘precautious’ and ‘proof of harm’ approaches—and presents their respective limits in securing the procedural and substantive dimensions of the legitimacy of administrative deference in democratic societies. On the basis of these criticisms, a synthesized and emergent approach—‘experiential precaution’—is presented as having the resources to deepen the legitimacy of risk governance institutions in the case of GM food. It is characterized by deepened participatory practices of negotiated rulemaking and inclusion of further substantive requirements in approval criteria
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Actors in Private Food Governance: The Legitimacy of Retail Standards and Multistakeholder Initiatives with Civil Society Participation. [REVIEW]Doris Fuchs, Agni Kalfagianni & Tetty Havinga - 2011 - Agriculture and Human Values 28 (3):353-367.
Corporate Governance in a Risk Society.Anselm Schneider & Andreas Georg Scherer - 2015 - Journal of Business Ethics 126 (2):1-15.
Globalizing the Democratic Community.Jens Bartelson - 2008 - Ethics and Global Politics 1 (4):159-174.
Can Food Safety Policy-Making Be Both Scientifically and Democratically Legitimated? If so, How?Erik Millstone - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (5):483-508.
Private Agrifood Governance: Conclusions, Observations and Provocations. [REVIEW]Spencer Henson - 2011 - Agriculture and Human Values 28 (3):443-451.
Democratizing Decision-Making on Food Safety in the EU: Closing Gaps Between Principles of Governance and Practice. [REVIEW]Ariane König - 2007 - Minerva 45 (3):275-294.
Standard Fare or Fairer Standards: Feminist Reflections on Agri-Food Governance. [REVIEW]Martha McMahon - 2011 - Agriculture and Human Values 28 (3):401-412.
Evaluating the Quality and Legitimacy of Global Governance: A Theoretical and Analytical Approach.Tim Cadman - 2012 - International Journal of Social Quality 2 (1):4-23.
Public Private Partnerships in Global Food Governance: Business Engagement and Legitimacy in the Global Fight Against Hunger and Malnutrition. [REVIEW]Christopher Kaan & Andrea Liese - 2011 - Agriculture and Human Values 28 (3):385-399.
Growing Local Food: Scale and Local Food Systems Governance.Phil Mount - 2012 - Agriculture and Human Values 29 (1):107-121.
Private Standards, Grower Networks, and Power in a Food Supply System.Lyndal-Joy Thompson & Stewart Lockie - 2013 - Agriculture and Human Values 30 (3):379-388.
Seven Samurai to Protect “Our” Food: The Reform of the Food Safety Regulatory System in Japan After the BSE Crisis of 2001. [REVIEW]Keiko Tanaka - 2008 - Agriculture and Human Values 25 (4):567-580.
Breaking New Ground in Food Regime Theory: Corporate Environmentalism, Ecological Feedbacks and the 'Food From Somewhere' Regime? [REVIEW]Hugh Campbell - 2009 - Agriculture and Human Values 26 (4):309-319.
Democratic Legitimacy and Proceduralist Social Epistemology.Fabienne Peter - 2007 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (3):329-353.