Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (5):2601-2627 (2020)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
This article presents and evaluates arguments supporting that an approval procedure for genome-edited organisms for food or feed should include a broad assessment of societal, ethical and environmental concerns; so-called non-safety assessment. The core of analysis is the requirement of the Norwegian Gene Technology Act that the sustainability, ethical and societal impacts of a genetically modified organism should be assessed prior to regulatory approval of the novel products. The article gives an overview how this requirement has been implemented in the regulatory practice, demonstrating that such assessment is feasible and justified. Even in situations where genome-edited organisms are considered comparable to non-modified organisms in terms of risk, the technology may have—in addition to social benefits—negative impacts that warrant assessments of the kind required in the Act. The main reason is the disruptive character of the genome editing technologies due to their potential for novel, ground-breaking solutions in agriculture and aquaculture combined with the economic framework shaped by the patent system. Food is fundamental for a good life, biologically and culturally, which warrants stricter assessment procedures than what is required for other industries, at least in countries like Norway with a strong tradition for national control over agricultural markets and breeding programs.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1007/s11948-020-00222-4 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age.Hans Jonas - 1984 - University of Chicago Press.
Philosophy and the Precautionary Principle: Science, Evidence, and Environmental Policy.Daniel Steel - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.
The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age.Hans Jonas - 1984 - Human Studies 11 (4):419-429.
Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle.Cass R. Sunstein - 2005 - Cambridge University Press.
Transferring Moral Responsibility for Technological Hazards: The Case of GMOs in Agriculture.Zoë Robaey - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (5):767-786.
View all 12 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Food System Transformation and the Role of Gene Technology: An Ethical Analysis.Paul B. Thompson - 2021 - Ethics and International Affairs 35 (1):35-49.
How to Do What Is Right, Not What Is Easy: Requirements for Assessment of Genome-Edited and Genetically Modified Organisms Under Ethical Guidelines.T. Dassler & T. Antonsen - 2021 - Food Ethics 6 (2).
Technology Neutrality in European Regulation of GMOs.Per Sandin, Christian Munthe & Karin Edvardsson Björnberg - 2022 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 25 (1):52-68.
Similar books and articles
Regulation and Safety Assessment of Genetically Engineered Food.Om V. Singh - 2010 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 4 (1).
Ethics in the Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for Sense and Sensibility. [REVIEW]Yann Devos, Pieter Maeseele, Dirk Reheul, Linda Van Speybroeck & Danny De Waele - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (1):29-61.
When Goliaths Clash: US and EU Differences Over the Labeling of Food Products Derived From Genetically Modified Organisms. [REVIEW]Andy Thorpe & Catherine Robinson - 2004 - Agriculture and Human Values 21 (4):287-298.
Genome Editing and Assisted Reproduction: Curing Embryos, Society or Prospective Parents?Giulia Cavaliere - 2018 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (2):215-225.
The US' Food and Drug Administration, Normativity of Risk Assessment, Gmos, and American Democracy.Zahra Meghani - 2009 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (2):125-139.
The Case for Regulating Intragenic GMOs.A. Wendy Russell & Robert Sparrow - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (2):153-181.
Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Food and Neoliberalism: An Argument for Democratizing the Regulatory Review Protocol of the Food and Drug Administration.Zahra Meghani - 2014 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (6):967–989.
Science and Values in Risk Assessment: The Case of Deliberate Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms. [REVIEW]Soemini Kasanmoentalib - 1996 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9 (1):42-60.
Product, Not Process! Explaining a Basic Concept in Agricultural Biotechnologies and Food Safety.Giovanni Tagliabue - 2017 - Life Sciences, Society and Policy 13 (1):1-9.
NGO Perspectives on the Social and Ethical Dimensions of Plant Genome-Editing.Richard Helliwell, Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce - 2019 - Agriculture and Human Values 36 (4):779-791.
Affected Genome Editing Crops: The Consequences of Genome-Edited Babies in China.Hao Li & San Yin - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (3):1847-1850.
A Precautionary Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Implications for Policy and Science. [REVIEW]Anne Ingeborg Myhr - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (6):501-525.
How to Include Socio-Economic Considerations in Decision-Making on Agricultural Biotechnology? Two Models From Kenya and South Africa.Koen Beumer - 2019 - Agriculture and Human Values 36 (4):669-684.
Genome Editing and Responsible Innovation, Can They Be Reconciled?Ann Bruce & Donald Bruce - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (5):769-788.
Assessment of GM Crops in Commercial Agriculture.E. Ann Clark & Hugh Lehman - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (1):3-28.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2020-05-19
Total views
15 ( #695,138 of 2,499,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,066 of 2,499,744 )
2020-05-19
Total views
15 ( #695,138 of 2,499,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,066 of 2,499,744 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads