10/8/08ESPP-781

10/8/08ESPP-782 In May 1999, a laboratory at Cornell University published the results from a laboratory trial that appeared to indicate that the pollen of genetically modified Bt corn presented a threat to monarch caterpillars. Critics claimed that the popular media was wrong to report that monarch butterflies were threatened because this experiment did not duplicate natural conditions under which monarch caterpillars may come in contact with corn pollen. (Cornell News, 1999) In 2001 the scientific journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published six comprehensive studies that showed that Bt corn pollen does not pose a risk to monarch populations for the following reasons: * The density of Bt corn pollen that overlay milkweed leaves in the environment rarely comes close to the levels needed to harm monarch butterflies. Both laboratory and field studies confirmed this. * There is limited overlap between the period that Bt corn sheds pollen and when caterpillars are present. * Only a portion of the monarch caterpillar population feeds on milkweeds in and near cornfields. (Sears, et al., 2001) Monarch populations in the USA during 1999 increased by 30%, despite Bt corn accounting for 30% of all corn grown in the USA that year. The beneficial effects of Bt corn on Monarch populations can be attributed to reduced pesticide use. (Trewavas and Leaver, 2001 ).

10/8/08ESPP-783 Risk and Culture “American exceptionalism” –Higher risk aversiveness (chemicals, nuclear power, ozone, endangered species) –High degrees of scientization –Reliance on objective representations –Openness of information “National styles” of regulation –Political dynamics (adversarial or cooperative) –Forms of access to government –Degree of openness and transparency

10/8/08ESPP-784 Politics of GM Crops United States –Wide introduction, little or no debate –Organics must be GM free Britain –National mobilization against GM crops –Uncertainties foregrounded; cautious adoption Germany –Strict rules for coexistence, testing, labeling

Civic Epistemologies: Cultural Ways of Knowing Expert rationalityEmpirical science Socio-technical experiments Demonstration (practices) Training, skills, experience ExperienceFormal methods Expertise (basis) Negotiated; reasoned NegotiatedNumerical; reasoned Objectivity (styles) Assumptions of trust Role-based Assumptions of trust Relational Assumptions of distrust Legal Public Accountability Corporatist, institution-based Embodied, service-based Pluralist, interest-based Ways of knowledge- making GermanyBritainUS

10/8/08ESPP-786 But science does not support the Frankenfood fears of some, particularly outside the United States, that biotech foods or other products will harm human health. Madeleine Albright, 2000

10/8/08ESPP-787 Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, is based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards Agreement, Article 2.2

10/8/08ESPP-788 WTO Amicus Brief: An Exercise in Global Activism Producing the brief: a matter of networks The strategy: don’t challenge the law, but work with(in) it. Redefining the analytic space for risk assessment: high certainty/high consensus; low certainty/low consensus

10/8/08ESPP-789 First Question If the ways we perceive frame measure characterize and communicate risk are all conditioned by aspects of our culture, then how can we fundamentally reform our policies for regulating risk?

10/8/08ESPP-7810 Second Question If different nations and political cultures systematically view and regulate risk in different ways, then what should a global institutions like WTO do when confronted with divergent risk perceptions? Should non-scientific factors be taken into account in considering the validity of trade barriers?