1. Innovations in Biotechnology: Public Perceptions & Cultural Attitudes Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Prof. Univ. of Oklahoma Law School Copyright 2004, Drew L. Kershen, all rights reserved

2. Introduction  Agricultural Biotechnology – the debate is not about facts, information, policy compromises  Contending paradigms about humankind, nature, food, science, trade, intellectual property  Galileo/Ptolemy; Darwin/Lysenko; Borlaug/Ho  Agricultural Biotechnology – either accepted and used or stigmatized and shunned

3. Historical Examples  China – Treasure Fleets 1405-1433 –Technological superiority –Voyages of exploration  Admiral Zheng He vs Confucians – power struggle  Stability, purity, precaution – Confucian virtues  Within 8 decades, China gave up its technological superiority to Portugal  1789 United States Constitution – Progress of Science and Useful Arts  1793 Patent Office  Stable legal protection for inventions & discoveries  Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980); J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. (2001)  Development as Freedom

4. The Nature of Agricultural Biotechnology  Europe –Different in kind –New laws, regulations and agencies – the technology itself  Technology assessment – determine the future  European Political leadership – tepid or hostile  United States –No fundamental difference – No new regulatory issues –Same laws, agencies – the products of the technology  No a priori determination – the future decides  Political leadership generally supportive – calming

5. Precautionary Principle or Precautionary Approach  Europe, precautionary principle –Hypothetical or imagined risks –Risks govern, benefits ignored –Burden to proof – prove no risks, no harm  Risk – zero tolerance – pervasive distrust  Food purity – pollution, contamination, segregation – categorical imperative, not risk analysis  US, precautionary approach –Identifiable harms; scientific evaluation –Burden to prove safe – non-discrimination  Benefit/Risk Balance – pervasive trust  Food safety – safe, nutritious foods – culinary arts, not the essence of the food, makes the meal

6. Food Labels  Europe –Process-based mandatory labelling –Consumer confidence –Consumer choice  Regulation, not markets  Stigma –Food scares – food ingredient avoidance –Additional burdens and costs – rent-seeking behaviour  United States –Material facts – mandatory –Freedom not to speak –Voluntary labels – not false or misleading  Niche Markets –Differentiate products –Niche consumers pay for the additional information  Consumer choice –GMO free –Organic production

7. Atlantic Separation International Fora  International Fora –Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety –Codex Alimentarius –FAO/WHO  Public policy choices –Prohibition – The European reality –Precaution – The European paradigm –Permissive – The Developing World ? –Promotional – The United States paradigm

8. Going Forward Risks for Europe  EU Domestic Risk –Bleak Future in a hostile climate –Industry -- Loss of competitiveness – Next wave of technology –Loss of scientific and entrepreneurial expertise  US at no risk –The paradigm does not govern American production –The NAFTA markets – dual chains of commodity trade  EU International Risk –Development as Freedom – food security, demographics, technology transfer –China & India  Technological capacity  Large domestic markets  Domestic Public policy  Europe at risk to China & India

9. The Paradigm Gambit  Scientific Ignorance, Ideological Motives, Moral Risk  Historical Choice –China – 1433 –Future Risk – the outcome in several decades –Science, technology, trade flows equally from East to West as West to East

10. References  L. Levathes, W hen China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1994)  A. Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999)  EC, Towards a Strategic Vision of Life Science and Biotechnology: A Consultation Document, COM (2001) 454 Final (04.09.2001)  VIB, Safety of Genetically Engineered Crops (June 5, 2000).http://www.vib.be

11. References  Nat’l Econ. Res. Assoc., Economic Appraisal of Options for Extension of Legislation on GM Labeling (London, May 2001) http://www.nera.com  R. Paarlberg, The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries (John Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001)  UNDP Report 2001, Making New Technologies Work for Human Development (Oxford. Univ. Press, 2001)

12. References  Asian Development Bank, Agricultural Biotechnology, Poverty Reduction, and Food Security (May 2001)  D. Kershen (1999) Biotechnology: An essay on the academy, cultural attitudes and public policy, AgBioForum 2(2), 137-146 (Spring 1999)  D. Kershen (2000) The Concept of Natural: Implications for Biotechnology Regulation, AgBioForum 3(1), 321-326 (Winter 2000)