Very similar tactics have been adopted by UK policy-makers. In 2009, a senior
official in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
with responsibility for advising ministers on the assessment and approval of
GM crops, insisted that UK policy was decided solely by reference to scientific
criteria concerning safety, and based on and only on scientific considerations. When
I suggested that criteria relating to non-scientific considerations such as economic
and social factors could also contribute to policy-making, the official asserted that
the policy was, and should only be, decided by reference to scientific factors –
beyond that, adoption or rejection of particular products should be decided ‘by
the market’. When I pointed out that to be judged ‘by the market’ is paradigmatically an economic criterion, the official was evidently shocked (pers. comm.
DEFRA, May 2009). It had never occurred to him that a market-based criterion
might not be socially or politically neutral. Nor did he appreciate that the reluctance
by UK and EU citizens to accept GM foods could be based on considerations that
were not just about safety or transactions of exchange.
Empirical research into disputes about the regulation of GM crops, on both
sides of the Atlantic, has shown that when expert advisers reach different conclusions they typically do so, not because only one side is doing good science or because
they are reaching contrary interpretations of shared and agreed evidence, but
because they are asking and answering different questions, and consequently
gathering and analysing different bodies of evidence (Millstone et al., 2008). In
October 2013, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental
Responsibility (ENSSR) issued a statement in October 2013 entitled: ‘No scientific
consensus on GMO safety’ (ENSSR, 2013). It stated:
As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to
the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) . . . we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and
some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific con -
sensus’ on GMO safety . . . and that the debate on this topic is ‘over’ . . .
the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does
exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence
and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover,
the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of
regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endan -
gering the health of humans, animals, and the environment. Science and
society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current
knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement.
(ibid.)
That document was a response to repeated attempts to pretend that the safety of
GM crops, which had been approved by the US authorities, were consequently
known for certain to be entirely safe. In the USA, Paarlberg articulated such a
narrative in relation to GM foods. In Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 49
official in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
with responsibility for advising ministers on the assessment and approval of
GM crops, insisted that UK policy was decided solely by reference to scientific
criteria concerning safety, and based on and only on scientific considerations. When
I suggested that criteria relating to non-scientific considerations such as economic
and social factors could also contribute to policy-making, the official asserted that
the policy was, and should only be, decided by reference to scientific factors –
beyond that, adoption or rejection of particular products should be decided ‘by
the market’. When I pointed out that to be judged ‘by the market’ is paradigmatically an economic criterion, the official was evidently shocked (pers. comm.
DEFRA, May 2009). It had never occurred to him that a market-based criterion
might not be socially or politically neutral. Nor did he appreciate that the reluctance
by UK and EU citizens to accept GM foods could be based on considerations that
were not just about safety or transactions of exchange.
Empirical research into disputes about the regulation of GM crops, on both
sides of the Atlantic, has shown that when expert advisers reach different conclusions they typically do so, not because only one side is doing good science or because
they are reaching contrary interpretations of shared and agreed evidence, but
because they are asking and answering different questions, and consequently
gathering and analysing different bodies of evidence (Millstone et al., 2008). In
October 2013, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental
Responsibility (ENSSR) issued a statement in October 2013 entitled: ‘No scientific
consensus on GMO safety’ (ENSSR, 2013). It stated:
As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to
the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) . . . we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and
some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific con -
sensus’ on GMO safety . . . and that the debate on this topic is ‘over’ . . .
the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does
exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence
and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover,
the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of
regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endan -
gering the health of humans, animals, and the environment. Science and
society do not proceed on the basis of a constructed consensus, as current
knowledge is always open to well-founded challenge and disagreement.
(ibid.)
That document was a response to repeated attempts to pretend that the safety of
GM crops, which had been approved by the US authorities, were consequently
known for certain to be entirely safe. In the USA, Paarlberg articulated such a
narrative in relation to GM foods. In Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is Being
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 49