14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
110<br />
headlines about ‘Frankenstein foods’ intuitively resonated<br />
with these concerns at the height of the GM debate in the<br />
United Kingdom.<br />
The perceived inability of governments to impose<br />
adequate controls mixes with these concerns. Such<br />
perception is based on clear <strong>evidence</strong> of regulatory and<br />
management controls (and their failures) across multiple<br />
apparently unrelated hazards. For example, the fact that<br />
GM crops have met with such vehement public reaction<br />
in the United Kingdom compared to the United States<br />
has been linked, at least in part, to people’s experience of<br />
the mismanagement of bovine spongiform encephalopathy<br />
(BSE). That disease involved <strong>risk</strong>s that obviously are entirely<br />
unrelated to GM — yet both speak to issues around<br />
the intensification of agriculture and the trans-boundary<br />
movement of hazards.<br />
Recent comparative work 17 looking at responses to GM<br />
crops in Mexico, Brazil, and India confirms the strength<br />
of cultural and political factors (see also case study in<br />
Chapter 2). In Mexico, for example, maize has a deep<br />
cultural resonance with long-held traditional practices of<br />
food preparation, and a symbolic resonance with plants and<br />
seeds in everyday lives. Negative reactions to GM maize<br />
are therefore a complex mix of concerns about the insult<br />
to tradition, and a lack of credibility in seed companies,<br />
regulatory bodies and government. In India, negative reaction<br />
has particularly been symbolized as a struggle against<br />
multinational companies and globalization. In relation to a<br />
deeply traditional and important non-food crop — cotton<br />
— the deliberate importation of Bt cotton led to fears of<br />
increased dependency on certain seed companies.<br />
For the United Kingdom, the current rise in local<br />
conflicts around proposals to extract shale gas by hydraulic<br />
fracturing (fracking) appears to reflect a combination<br />
of Nimby-esque responses to the local impacts on the<br />
environment (such as noise and water pollution); threats<br />
to the social and economic status quo; and a sense of<br />
decision-making isolation from the potentially affected<br />
communities. Importantly, there is a lack of saliency in terms<br />
of the national need for alternative energy supplies (see the<br />
fracking case study in Section 2 for more on this issue).<br />
Fracking is viewed primarily as an environmental rather<br />
than an energy issue, as differences in responses by socioeconomic<br />
status and rural versus urban locations in the<br />
United States have confirmed 18 . However, in local contexts<br />
where new exploitation of gas supplies has seen rapid ‘boom<br />
town’ change in rural areas that have endured extended<br />
periods of economic decline, <strong>risk</strong> can be associated with<br />
opportunity 19 .<br />
The fracking debate resonates with the divergent<br />
responses to energy-from-waste incineration. In countries<br />
like Denmark and Sweden, the technology is often part of<br />
the mix in the local supply of heat and energy. In the United<br />
Kingdom it is primarily a waste management solution, and<br />
has frequently sparked local concern about the need for<br />
large-scale plants with all of the perceived local dis-benefits.<br />
In Scandinavia, plants tend to be smaller because they<br />
are sized to meet local heat-supply needs, and to process<br />
lower volumes of feed material that arise within reasonable<br />
travel distances. In general, a more nuanced understanding<br />
of ‘place based’ as opposed to ‘project based’ concerns<br />
seems important, not least when national policies need to<br />
be implemented locally (such as in relation to large-scale<br />
energy infrastructures 20 ).<br />
Regulatory Cultures<br />
Normal and sustained cultures of trust can be dramatically<br />
challenged by new <strong>risk</strong>s. This is evinced by the differing<br />
regulatory approaches to interpreting ‘hazard’ and ‘<strong>risk</strong>’, and<br />
to dealing with uncertainty, that reflect cultural scientific<br />
differences.<br />
The difference between the UK approach to <strong>risk</strong><br />
management and the European precautionary regulatory<br />
approach to hazards has long been evident. One wellknown<br />
and particularly economically-damaging impact of<br />
this difference was seen in the response to BSE. When this<br />
previously unknown cattle disease erupted in the United<br />
Kingdom in the mid-1980s, it was acknowledged that a new<br />
variant (nv) of the human encephalopathy, Creutzfeldt-Jacob<br />
disease (nvCJD), might be caused by exposure to BSE. This<br />
led the European Union to impose a ban on the worldwide<br />
export of beef products from the UK, plunging the country’s<br />
beef industry into potential disaster.<br />
At the heart of the regulatory response was a cultural<br />
difference in the approach to scientific uncertainty. The<br />
British approach traditionally excludes abstract uncertainties<br />
or knowledge limitations and applies a pragmatic,<br />
instrumentalist approach. The continental European tradition<br />
is founded in a culture that tends to integrate natural<br />
and human sciences more directly. Hence, precautionary<br />
regulatory intervention is often taken in response to a<br />
plausible <strong>risk</strong>, even though pathways of exposure cannot be<br />
demonstrated 21 .<br />
Differences in agricultural policy between the European<br />
Union and the Unites States underpin their divergent<br />
approach to GM crop <strong>risk</strong>s. Regulatory differences have<br />
been analyzed in terms of the different cultural and<br />
economic meanings of agriculture 22 . US farms have more<br />
often been seen as analogous to factories, separate from<br />
wilderness and nature conservation areas. In Europe,<br />
however, farmland is widely regarded as an integral<br />
component of the environment — an aesthetic landscape,<br />
wildlife habitat, and part of the local heritage. Importantly,<br />
farms are a traceable guarantee of food quality. So EU<br />
Genetic modification<br />
drives to the heart of<br />
concerns about ‘mucking<br />
around with nature’.