Background
This article by Michael Carolan builds on the framework of “Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, with their now famous discussion of ‘‘postnormal science,’’ and Alvin Weinberg, with his well-known distinction between ‘‘research’’ and ‘‘trans-science’’P.661. He explains the concept that the level of uncertainty and complexity should determine how much public involvement is appropriate in the decision-making process. For problems with low uncertainty and low complexity the science was to be “done” by applied / research scientists with little if any public participation. Conversely, highly complex highly uncertain problems should include the participation of the trans-science/ policy science community. This trans-science community involvement would give (subjective) value based concerns validity. He suggests that “public experts” are needed to be a liaison for social concerns. “Public expertise is particularly valuable (and some might say ethically mandatory) when dealing with, for instance, environmental threats/risks.” P.665.
Topic
These public experts would work with contributory experts (who do research in specific fields), and interactional experts (who help experts from different field cooperate). This combination of experts would help avoid situations where local/public knowledge/values from being ignored because they, “(lack) proper scientific training and credentials.”P.664. Public experts provide these credentials. Carolan also mentions the need for public experts specifically when dealing with social concerns that relate to the environment. This can be seen clearly with the current ballot measure 92 on the labeling of GMO foods.
Are GMO Foods unhealthy for humans? No.
“GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health any more than their conventional counterparts.”1 WHO
“Numerous studies have not shown any link between genetically modified food and negative health impacts”3 Register Guard
“In fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist.”4
“Thus far, GM food has not been proven to be harmful”5
It seems clear that the scientific community when looking at the health effects of GMO’s are either 1) No peer reviewed studies support the fact that GMO’s are directly dangerous to human health or 2) there is inadequate research in on GMO’s safety on human health. This supports my experience both politically and academically. I haven’t been able to find or met people who can cite a valid scientific source proving that GMO are unhealthy. There is plenty of research that supports that non GMO and organic foods are healthier in that they provide more nutrients but nothing that GMO’s directly cause negative health impacts. A common anti-GMO explanation is that, “insufficient research exists to prove they are safe, therefor should be assumed dangerous.”
Since the scientific community has found that GMO’s are safe, policy should reflect that right? NO, this is not a low uncertainty/ low complexity issue. Therefore, the trans-science community must be involved. There is well documented research on the negative social externalities of GMO food production. The applied science community is not equipped to incorporate those findings into their research without interactional and public expert participation. This is a social problem not a science experiment.
Conclusion
The issue of GMO foods in my opinion is not whether they are safe or not for human consumption but if are they socially responsible. The controversy of labeling GMO foods should not focus on the direct health effects on humans (because that argument is not substantiated by the scientific community) but should include economic feasibility and to a larger degree social implications. That is what Public experts should advocate for. I believe labeling of GMO should be thought of/argued for in similar respects as the labeling of fair trade. Fair trade labeling rightfully informs the consumer of a social issue that is present in the production and distribution of, (coffee) for example. Coffee that is not fair trade isn’t unhealthy and will not make you sick if you consume it. But, it has other negative implications that are valid. Fair trade coffee (theoretically) has less negative social externalities, that same is true for Non GMO foods. Social values have validity under the trans-science approach and allows for the democratization of decision-making. This is obviously something the public needs to have a say in.
PS I encourage feedback and education on the facts of GMO’s direct health effects on humans. If there is valid research in this field I would love to know. I hope people can see that I do support labeling GMO but only based on their social implications. Again, that is my “applied science” objective understanding of that aspect of the problem. If there is information to the contrary I’m more than willing to consider it.
Sources
1.) World Health Organization. “Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study.” (2005). Peer reviewed
2.) Carolan, Michael S. 2006. “Science, Expertise, and the Democratization of the Decision-Making Process.” Society & Natural Resources 19 (7) (August): 661–668.
3) Register Guard GMO: Opposition has been gaining ground in the polls Friday October 24,2014
4) Pusztai, Arpad. “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?.” (2001): 173-180. Peer reviewed
5) Greenwell, Pamela, and Sanjiv Rughooputh. “Genetically modified food: good news but bad press.” Biomedical Scientist 48.8 (2004): 845-846. Peer reviewd
Peer review sources were found using google scholar
I think you pose a legitimate point of view that many people agree with and feel is very important. The direct health effects of GMO foods can be debated due to what some would view as a lack of scientific evidence that there is a tangible negative effect on human health. However, the indirect effects of GMOs should not be taken lightly. Lower nutrient levels, as you mentioned, is one of the major proven differences between GMO and non-GMO foods, and consuming lower nutrient foods is presumably not healthy in the long term. Health effects aside, I think there is another major issue with GMOs that should not be ignored. There is a large population of people who feel that GMOs are not only a health or food justice issue, but also a major moral issue. There are strong and varying opinions on whether genetic modification, in food or otherwise, is something that should be up to human interpretation or interference.
I really appreciate the perspective in this post. The social aspect of GMO food production seems to be overlooked by many critics in favor of the argument that it is potentially dangerous for humans to consume. With that being said, I’m not sure that we know enough about GMOs to definitively say that they are completely safe for human consumption. World Health Organization, which is cited in this blog, list three concerns for human health, allergenicity, gene transfer, and outcrossing. Below is an excerpt of the points made off of their frequently asked questions page for genetically modified food.
“Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.
Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.
Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.” (http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/)
The same frequently asked questions page it goes on to say “Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.” This is why I think it’s difficult to make such a definitive statement regarding GMO food safety. I do like the author’s connection between it being a low uncertainty/low complexity issue and the need for the trans-science community to be involved. I would argue though, that genetically modifying organisms and inserting them into our food chain it is both a social problem and a science experiment. Overall I genuinely enjoyed this author’s approach to this complex subject, it had me thinking about this issue from a different perspective.