french english

Publications > Cahiers (English)> N° 68-69, 2rd and 3th terms 2003


Introduction : Anastasia O'Rourke et David Vogel
What explains the divergence in European and American perspectives on the regulation of genetically-engineered food ?

COMPTES RENDUS DE LECTURE

R. CLARKE, S. DAVIES, P. DOBSON and M. WATERSON, Buyer Power and Competition in European Food Retailing, by V. Courboin-Thenail; Ph. PERRIER-CORNET (sous la direction de), Repenser les campagnes et A qui appartient l'espace rural ? Enjeux publics et politiques, by C. Canévet ; S. V. LANGLEY, S. MOHANTY, M. GIUGALE and W. H. MEYERS, Exchange Rate Volatility and International Agricultural Trade, by E. Chevassus-Lozza ; H. SCIARDET, Les marchands de l'aube, ethnographie et théorie du commerce aux Puces de Saint-Ouen, by A. Lhuissier

Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ?Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux États-Unis
[Have the Americans accepted GMOs ? A comparative analysis of the construction of GMOs as a public problem in France and the USA]

Pierre Benoit JOLY*, Claire MARRIS* (* Laboratoire Transformations sociales et politiques liées aux vivants (TSV), INRA, 65 boulevard de Brandebourg, 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine Cedex - e-mail : joly@ivry.inra.fr, marris@ivry.inra.fr)

In : Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, n° 68-69, 2003, pp 11-45

Summary - How can one explain that the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food and agriculture poses a problem in France, where they are hardly used, yet seems to be taken for granted in the US, where their use is widespread ? Many observers see this as a sign that American consumers have accepted transgenic foods, due to a different attitude to risks, food and nature. The present article rejects that explanation. It presents a comparative analysis of the trajectory of GMOs as a public problem in France and the US, showing that very similar arguments were put forward by opponents to GMOs on both sides of the Atlantic, and that conflicts between opponents and defenders have focussed on the same issues : (i) food labeling ; (ii) the link between the choice of a technique (GMOs) and that of an economic system (intensive agriculture, capitalism) ; and (iii) the appropriate framework for evaluating risks. But whereas in France (and more generally in Europe), opponents’ arguments crystallized during specific key controversies, and contributed towards the definition of the cognitive and normative dimensions of GMOs as a public problem, this did not occur in the US. Three factors seem to explain this difference : (i) very different regulatory choices made in the late 1980s (based on processes in Europe and on products in the US) ; (ii) the fact that the usefulness of transgenic plants is perceived negatively in France whereas their association with the intensive export agriculture project is perceived positively in the US ; and (iii) the growing influence of a broader, "constructive" framework for risk analysis in Europe, whereas in the US regulatory authorities continue to base their legitimacy on the ideology of "sound science".

Key-words : public problem, agenda setting, genetically-modified organisms, risks, scientific controversy.

Reframing regulatory science : Trans-Atlantic conflicts over GM crops

Les LEVIDOW*, Joseph MURPHY* (* Centre for Technology Strategy, Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK - e-mail : L.Levidow@open.ac.uk - J. Murphy@open.ac.uk)

In : Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, n° 68-69, 2003, pp 27-74

Summary - Regulatory science has been reframed for evaluating environmental risks of GM crops in both the USA and Europe. Social conflict has contributed to disputes over scientific evidence and thus increased scientific uncertainty. Environmentalist criticisms have influenced mainstream debates about how to define harm, how to evaluate GM crops vis-à-vis alternatives, and how to design risk research. Regulatory criteria have been reconstructed through socio-cultural values, public protest and institutional responses. Regulatory changes can be understood as four related processes. New scientific uncertainties have arisen from public-scientific debate. Extra-scientific judgements have been acknowledged within regulatory issues and expert advice, rather than remain hidden behind "science". Criteria for evidence of safety have become more stringent, specifically regarding environmental norms and causal pathways of potential harm. Trans-Atlantic trade conflicts have been a source of political opportunities and scientific resources for those regulatory changes, especially in the US.

Key-words : regulatory science, GM crops, evaluation, environmental risks.

Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food : French and American experiences

Diahanna L. POST*, Jérôme M. DA ROS** (** Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall, # 1950, CA, 94720. e-mail : dlynch@socrates.berkeley.edu ** LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. 130, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, 75008 Paris. e-mail : jdaros@llgm.com)

In : Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, n° 68-69, 2003, pp 75-101

Summary - This paper describes three cases of government-led efforts in France and the United States to bring stakeholders into the regulatory process for genetically-modified food. We analyze how government regulators, scientists, and members of the public interacted in these three different settings, and conclude that public participation is not linked with a regulatory outcome ; in other words, for various reasons which we consider, public participation did not have a substantive impact on government policies in this area. We consider how these processes could be improved, by drawing on two distinct literatures - social studies of science and organization theory. A more conscious cross-fertilization of the two literatures would shed some insights broadly on science and public organizations, and particularly on the problem of regulating a complex and uncertain area of technology.

Key-words : food safety, regulation, public organizations, science studies, genetically-engineered food.

OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques
[Trade-related issues in the regulation of genetically-modified organisms]

Olivier CADOT*, Akiko SUWA-EISENMANN**, Daniel TRACA*** (* HEC Lausanne, BFSH1, 1015 Lausanne, Suisse ; CERDI et CEPR - e-mail : Olivier.Cadot@hec.unil.ch ** INRA, LEA, 48 Bd Jourdan, 75014 Paris et DELTA - e-mail : akiko.suwa@ens.fr *** INSEAD-Singapour, 1 Ayer Rajah Avenue, 138676 Singapore)

In : Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, n° 68-69, 2003, pp 103-148

Summary - This paper examines some of the trade-related aspects of the transatlantic conflict over agricultural biotechnology regulation. We first review the notion of "regulatory protectionism"and the difficulties arising in its definition. We also discuss its economic rationale in the light of the strategic trade policy literature. Next, we turn to an empirical assessment of the trade effects of EU biotechnology regulations, verifying the evidence in support of US claims that those regulations have hurt US agricultural exports. Preliminary econometric results at a disaggregated level seem to indicate that there was no shock on US exports of corn seeds for planting in the years 1997-2000. Evidence for soybeans points to a price effect. The paper then turns to a comparison of GMO regulation in the US and EU, assessing the importance of trade vs non-trade issues.

Key-words : biotechnology, protectionism, market access, norms.

Will the success of trade policy undermine the world trading system ?

David G. VICTOR*, Rebecca U. WEINER** (** Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Stanford University, Encina Hall E416, Stanford, CA 94305 - e-mail : David.Victor@stanford.edu ** Harvard Law School, 31 Concord Avenue, apt#15, Cambridge, MA 02138 - e-mail : eweiner@law.harvard.edu)

In : Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, n° 68-69, 2003, pp 149-165

Summary - A great transformation is under way in international relations. The influence of non-state actors is rising, and the focus of intergovernmental coordination is shifting from border measures, such as tariffs, to a myriad of policies that traditionally have been the sole province of national decision making, such as food safety standards. This transformation is most evident where international cooperation has been most successful : international trade, in particular the efforts within the World Trade Organization (WTO) to manage non-tariff barriers to trade. In many cases it has proved extremely difficult for nations to comply with WTO strictures on non-tariff policies because these policies are embedded within an array of political supporters and institutions that democratic governments find difficult (and politically costly) to unravel. We focus on these "problem cases"- where the goal of liberalizing trade conflicts with popular consumer preferences - and suggest that these pose a threat to the legal integrity and political sustainability of the WTO. Ironically, cases marked by relatively low economic stakes may pose the greatest threats because these cases are less likely to be linked to other important benefits of international cooperation, and thus governments are less likely to seek an intergovernmental solution to avert non-compliance in such situations. We suggest that formal remedies to this problem are unlikely to be successful ; rather, restraint by key states is likely to be the most effective way for the world trading community to learn to avoid and abate these problem cases before they overwhelm the world trading system.

Key-words : WTO, international law, international trade, beef hormones, GMO, trade dispute settlemenes.
Droits et devoirs des utilisateurs  -   copyright INRA 1999-2009  -  INRA -SAE2 (tous droits réservés) - Date de création : février 2005  -   Réalisation : Claire Tarot
Direction de la publication : Bertrand Schmitt  -   webmaster - contact -