Search for: All records

Abstract This study investigates how proponents and critics of gene editing in agriculture and food (GEAF) employ expectations—discourses with future‐oriented impacts—as they compete to secure desired futures and mobilise social processes and resources towards their goal of influencing GEAF (re)regulation and agro‐food systems within the EU. We draw on 27 semi‐structured interviews and 53 Euractiv media articles to identify and analyse GEAF proponents’ and critics’ responses to the 2018 European Court of Justice regulatory decision that GEAF will be regulated as genetically modified organisms. Despite similar themes of environmental sustainability, food security and winners and losers in agricultural innovation systems, proponents’ and critics’ discourses reflect divergent expectations of GEAF. We argue that both groups link their expectations with concerns about path dependencies in technological innovations and agro‐food systems, which serve to influence emerging political, public and elite perspectives on GEAF. Although to some extent performative, these concerns offer important insights that should be problematised and engaged within GEAF governance spaces. This study is conceptually framed by the socio‐technical futures, path dependency and political economy of food and agriculture literature. 

Abstract Part of the rationale behind the introduction of the term cisgenesis was the expectation that due to the “more natural” character of the genetic modification, cisgenic plants would be socially more acceptable than transgenic ones. This chapter assesses whether this expectation was justified. It thereby addresses three arenas of social acceptability: public perception, consumer preferences, and legal regulation. Discussing and comparing recent studies from four geographical areas across the globe—Europe, North America, Japan, and Australia and New Zealand—the chapter shows that the expectation was justified, and that cisgenic plants are treated as being more acceptable than other forms of genetic modification. Yet, there are considerable differences across the three arenas of social acceptability. In Australia, Canada, and the United States of America, the legal regulation of cisgenic plants is less restrictive than in Europe, Japan, and New Zealand. Also, the public perceptions are rather diverse across these countries, as are the factors that are deemed most influential in informing public opinion and consumer decisions. While people in North America appear to be most interested in individual benefits of the products (improved quality, health aspects), Europeans are more likely to accept cisgenic plants and derived products if they have a proven environmental benefit. In New Zealand, in contrast, the potential impact of cisgenic plants on other, more or less related markets, like meat export and tourism, is heavily debated. We conclude with some remarks about a possible new arrangement between science and policy that may come about with a new, or homogenized, international regulatory regime. 

An inclusive and socially legitimate governance structure is absent to address concerns over new agricultural biotechnologies. Establishing an agricultural bioethics commission devoted to inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance in agricultural and food biotechnology is urgent. Highlighting the social and ethical dimensions of current agricultural bioengineering disputes in the food system, we discuss how a nationally recognized policy forum could improve decision-making and increase public understanding of the issues. We clarify ways the concepts that are used to categorize food and frame governance of food affect consumer choices, and how dissemination of information and the mode of dissemination can contribute to social inequities. We cite the record of medically-oriented bioethic commissions and the history of international bioethic commissions in support of our argument, and end by discussing what such a commission dedicated to agriculture and food issues could reasonably be expected to achieve. 

Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture reflect and shape culturally particular understandings of what role technology should play in an ideal agrifood future. This study employs a comparative media content analysis to identify sociotechnical imaginaries of agricultural gene editing and the actors who perform them in five countries with contrasting regulatory and cultural contexts: Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United States. We find that news media in these countries reinforce a predominantly positive portrayal of the technology’s future, although variations in which imaginaries are most mobilized exist based on the regulatory status of gene editing and unique histories of civil society engagement around biotechnology in each country. We argue that by granting legitimacy to some narratives over others, the media supports gene editing as a desirable and necessary component of future agrifood systems, thereby limiting consideration of broader issues related to the technology’s development and application. 

This special issue reflects a variety of methodological and critical perspectives on contemporary issues regarding social concerns, public engagement, and governance of gene editing in agriculture. 

The agricultural biotechnology world has been divided into two blocks; countries adopting GM crops for commercial cultivation (adopters) and others without any or without relevant cultivation of such crops (non-adopters). Meanwhile, an increasing number of adopter countries have exempted certain genome-edited (GE) crops from legal GMO pre-market approval and labelling requirements. Among them are major exporters of agricultural commodities such as United States, Canada, and Australia. Due to the relaxed legislation more GE plants are expected to enter the market soon. Many countries in the non-adopter group, however, depend on import of large volumes of agricultural commodities from adopter countries. Unlike first generation GM, certain GE crops cannot be identified as unambiguously originating from genome editing using available techniques. Consequently, pressure is mounting on non-adopter jurisdictions to reconsider their policies and legislations. Against this backdrop, the paper explores recent developments relevant for social acceptability in selected non-adopters, Japan, New Zealand, the EU, Norway, and Switzerland in contrast to United States, Canada, and Australia. While Japan is already opening-up and Norway and Switzerland are discussing revisions of their policies, the EU and New Zealand are struggling with challenges resulting from high court decisions. In an attempt to take a closer look into the inner dynamics of these developments, the concept of social acceptability proposed by Wüstenhagen et al. (Energy Policy, 2007, 35(5), 2683–2691) is employed. This aids the understanding of developments in the jurisdictions considered and identifies specific or cross-cutting challenges.