Accountability and Risk Governance
A Scenario-informed Reflection on European
Regulation of GMOs
Laura Drott
Lukas Jochum
Just a short introduction...
•
Uncertain risks
– Imaginable hazards with which society has no or only
limited experience
– Uncertain whether the ‘thing’ in question constitues a risk
to humans and/or the environment
vs
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
2
Just a short introduction... (continued)
• GMOs
– Short for genetically modified organisms
– Alleged benefits include pest resistance, drought
resistance, higher yields, and many more...
• Are GMOs uncertain risks?
– Yes, because society lacks experience...
– Suspicions of harmful consequences to human
health/enviroment remain  uncertainty
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
3
Our case study of an uncertain risk...
•
Bt-11 is authorised in the European Union (EU) in
the 90s
– Bt-11 is a gm-maize produced by Syngenta
•
Authorised under several ‘authorisation streams’
– Cultivation
– Sweet maize as food
– Food and feed additives
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
4
...so, imagine the following scenario...
•
In the future new food allergies suddenly emerge
–
–
–
–
–
Allergies are linked to the consumption of Bt-11
Food scares and consumer protests follow
High media coverage
EU Member States impose national bans
Public demands investigations
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
5
...so we asked ourselves...
• Who would be accountable to the
European public in such a scenario?
• What do we mean by public
accountability?
– “A is accountable to B, when A is obliged to
inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and
decisions, to justify them, and to suffer
punishment in the case of eventual misconduct.”
(Schedler, 1999, p.13)
– Those who govern are accountable to those who
are governed. (Joss, 2001)
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
6
How does the EU governance system for
GMOs function? A brief glimpse...
GM Applicant
EU Member State
European
Commission
According to the
legal text…
EFSA/Predecessor
Member State
Member State
Member State
European
Commission
Standing
Committee
Council
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
7
How did the authorisation procedure
actually play out for Bt-11...
Syngenta
EU Member State
European
Commission
EFSA/Predecessor
Other Member States voiced objections
Member State
Member State
Despite Member States
concerns, scientific
opinions were favourable
Member State
European
Commission
Standing
Committee
Commission granted approval
Unable to take decision
Council
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
8
Quick recap - the scenario again…
• In the future new food allergies suddenly emerge
–
–
–
–
–
Allergies are linked to the consumption of Bt-11
Food scares and consumer protests follow
High media coverage about incidents
EU Member States impose national bans
Public demands investigations
Who would be accountable to the European public in
such a scenario?
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
9
What can we conclude thus far? Can the
actors involved be held accountable?
•
Syngenta
– No, because the company adhered to all relevant legal
requirements
– European institutions approved the company’s risk
assessment
•
EFSA
– Difficult, due to its largely independent status (no forum
available)
– “Independent scientific advisor”
– Advisory function only, not responsible for final decision
– Commission lacks legal supervision
– Public consultation forums
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
10
What can we conclude thus far? Can the
actors involved be held accountable?
•
Member States
– Difficult, due to likely change in office of responsible
national minister
•
Council
– No, because no actual decision was taken in the Council
•
Commission
– Difficult, due to likely change in office of responsible
Commissioners
– European Parliament’s interogation thus unlikely
– Commission not obliged to consider public comments, only
EFSA’s opinion has to be taken into account
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
11
Overall conclusion
•
Conclusion
– Each actor in the authorisation process can at best be partly held
accountable.
– Each actor is able to refer to its compliance with the legal rules
and procedures of GMO regulation at the time of authorisation
– The ‘blame’ shifts from one actor to the next
– Overall accountability cannot be established, only piecemeal
accountability exists
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
12
‘Academic take-away’
•
Organised Irresponsibility
– The authorisation of Bt-11 is a prime example of “organised
irrespossibility” (Beck, 1992)
• Ulrich Beck coined the concept of the risk society
• Risk society describes the process with which modern societies deal with risks
– GMO authorisation procedure unable to deal with long-term
impacts of uncertain risks
Even though sophisticated decision-making structures are in
place, no one can be held accountable if uncertain risks should
materialise
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
13
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
14