Ethical reflections on herbicide-resistant crops.

The introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops has caused a fierce public debate in Europe. Much of the controversy centres on possible risks to the environment. A specific problem here is that risk perception of the scientific experts differs from that of the public. In this paper, risks associated with herbicide-resistant crops are presented from the point of view of experts and lay people. In the public perception, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops are troublesome because of their association with two technologies: genetic engineering of crops and the use of herbicides. These technologies are perceived as risky because they seem to share certain features: in particular, their long-term effects are unknown and they are dreaded. Other value questions also come into play. The public seems to be concerned that risks are not outweighed by usefulness, that using HR crops is the wrong path to sustainable agriculture, that the individual's right to choose GM-free products may be violated, and that these crops are unnatural. In contrast, on the issue of the uncertainty inherent in risk assessment, experts and the public seem to share a good deal of ground.

Making the EU "risk window" transparent: the normative foundations of the environmental risk assessment of GMOs.

In Europe, there seems to be widespread, morally based scepticism about the use of GMOs in food production. In response to this scepticism, the revised EU directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms stresses the importance of respecting ethical principles recognized in the Member States. However, the directive fails to reflect the critical role of value judgements in scientific risk assessment and any subsequent approval procedure. In this paper we argue that it is important to make all ethically relevant assumptions involved in the approval procedure transparent and thus available for public scrutiny. Mapping the value judgements that are made in an environmental risk assessment and approval procedure, we describe the political liberal nature of the EU legislation. We then look more closely at the prescriptions for environmental risk assessment and approval of GMOs outlined in the directive. An environmental risk assessment views the world through a "risk window" that only makes visible that which has been predefined as a relevant risk. The importance of the value judgements that define the risk window consists in limiting the information the risk assessment can provide. In the penultimate section of the paper, the significance of the risk window is demonstrated through a case study of the approval of glyphosate resistant fodder beets (Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris) in Denmark.