Recasting "Substantial Equivalence":Transatlantic Governance of GM Food

@article{citeulike:2770880, abstract = {When intense public controversy erupted around agricultural biotechnology in the late 1990s, critics found opportunities to challenge risk assessment criteria and test methods for genetically modified (GM) products. In relation to GM food, they criticized the concept of substantial equivalence, which European Union and United States regulators had adopted as the basis for a harmonized, science-based approach to risk assessment. Competing policy agendas framed scientific uncertainty in different ways. Substantial equivalence was contested and eventually recast to accommodate some criticisms. To explain how the concept changed, this article links two analytical perspectives. Regulatory-science perspectives illuminate how the scientification of politics and politicization of science led to shifts in the boundary between science and policy. Governance perspectives illuminate how the collective problem for policy was redefined to provide a new common ground for some stakeholders. Overall, substantial equivalence was recast to govern the social conflict and address legitimacy problems of regulatory procedures. 10.1177/0162243906293885}, author = {Levidow, Les and Murphy, Joseph and Carr, Susan }, citeulike-article-id = {2770880}, doi = {10.1177/0162243906293885}, journal = {Science Technology Human Values}, keywords = {equivalence, gm, governance, regulation, regulatory\_science, substantial}, month = {January}, number = {1}, pages = {26--64}, posted-at = {2008-05-08 12:48:39}, priority = {2}, title = {Recasting "Substantial Equivalence":Transatlantic Governance of GM Food}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243906293885}, volume = {32}, year = {2007} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:2770880 TI - Recasting "Substantial Equivalence":Transatlantic Governance of GM Food JF - Science Technology Human Values VL - 32 IS - 1 SP - 26 EP - 64 N2 - When intense public controversy erupted around agricultural biotechnology in the late 1990s, critics found opportunities to challenge risk assessment criteria and test methods for genetically modified (GM) products. In relation to GM food, they criticized the concept of substantial equivalence, which European Union and United States regulators had adopted as the basis for a harmonized, science-based approach to risk assessment. Competing policy agendas framed scientific uncertainty in different ways. Substantial equivalence was contested and eventually recast to accommodate some criticisms. To explain how the concept changed, this article links two analytical perspectives. Regulatory-science perspectives illuminate how the scientification of politics and politicization of science led to shifts in the boundary between science and policy. Governance perspectives illuminate how the collective problem for policy was redefined to provide a new common ground for some stakeholders. Overall, substantial equivalence was recast to govern the social conflict and address legitimacy problems of regulatory procedures. 10.1177/0162243906293885 KW - equivalence KW - gm KW - governance KW - regulation KW - regulatory_science KW - substantial AU - Levidow, Les AU - Murphy, Joseph AU - Carr, Susan PY - 2007/01/01/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243906293885 ER -