In Transnational Narratives and Regulation of GMO Risks, Giulia Claudia Leonelli explores the regulatory debates surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used in food production. Through robust legal analysis and case studies, the book illuminates the conflicting socioeconomic and scientific considerations surrounding the risks of agricultural biotechnology, writes Juliana Reimberg.
Over the last three decades, there have been significant increases in the use of genetic engineering techniques in the production of food and animal feed. It is estimated that between 1996 to 2019 the planting area of biotech crops increased from 1.7 million hectares to 190.4 million hectares. Among the most planted crops are soybean, maize, cotton and canola. Advocates of agricultural biotechnologies argue that the use of genetically engineered organisms (“GE organisms”) can expand global production, while reducing costs for farmers and consumers, as well as lowering the use of herbicides and insecticides (5). In this sense, GE organisms have been framed as a solution to hunger and a means to promote food security in low and middle-income countries.
Advocates of agricultural biotechnologies argue that the use of genetically engineered organisms (‘GE organisms’) can expand global production, while reducing costs for farmers and consumers
Nevertheless, uncertainties around the consumption of GE organisms and controversies regarding their socioeconomic impact have fostered an opposing narrative to the use of agricultural biotechnologies. In Great Britain, 44 per cent of people think that genetic modification of crops is unnatural and harmful to consumers and the planet. At the same time, social movements and scholars have contested the claim that biotechnology will tackle starvation, pointing out that the main issues for hunger are poverty, politics and food distribution instead of food shortage.
scholars have contested the claim that biotechnology will tackle starvation, pointing out that the main issues for hunger are poverty, politics and food distribution instead of food shortage.
In this context, Transnational Narrative and Regulation of GMO Risks presents the risk regulation debate around producing and commercialising GE organisms in the current global order. Giulia Claudia Leonelli focuses on the ability of science and politics to build consensus around uncertain risks and the use of biotechnology for food and feed, in national and international contexts. In her analysis, she underlines the socioeconomic controversies around GE organisms and explains the decision-making process behind whether or not some of these products should appear on supermarket shelves.
The book is the result of the PhD thesis submitted to the King’s College London, which won the Elsevier Prize for Outstanding Doctoral Work in 2018. Leonelli currently teaches at LSE Law School in the fields of climate change law, environmental law, trade law and risk regulation. In this work, she proposes overall three contributions, one methodological and two empirical, to transnational studies and the risk regulation debate.
The first is the application of “Transnational Legal Analysis” as a methodological framework to investigate the risk regulation of GE organisms. This approach aims to deconstruct transnational legal narratives, identifying the social and political contexts where they are developed within (extra-territoriality), across (legal pluralisation) or beyond (legal hybridisation) the nation-state level (52, 53). In this sense, the book focuses on the regulatory infrastructure and how they are shaped by clashes of discourses.
The second contribution is the clear presentation of the contrast between the evidence-based (hegemonic) and the socially acceptable risk approach (counter-hegemonic) narratives on the control of GE organisms, demonstrating how these discourses are shaping the risk regulation debate and their transnational impact. The hegemonic narrative stands on a sound science approach where the lack of proof of unsafety harms and hazards justifies deregulation (99), and a cost-benefit analysis, understanding that the economic benefits of GE organisms exceed stricter regulatory approaches. In the book, Leonelli illustrates how the hegemonic narrative has been central in the United States governance of GE organisms (Chapter Three), the interpretation of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (“SPS Agreement”) (Chapter Five) and the guidelines adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (“Codex”) (Chapter Six).
In contrast, the counter-hegemonic narrative adopts a precautionary principle, considering other aspects such as other legitimate factors (OLFs) and the limits of science and uncertainties in the face of complex challenges in the risk regulation of GE organisms (140). This perspective is normally associated with reflecting on the potential risks that agricultural biotechnology might impose on public health, the environment and collective interests. In the book, this discourse is illustrated by the European Union (EU) Regulation of GE organisms (Chapter Four) and regulatory standards enacted by NGOs (Chapter Six).
different risk approaches to regulating GE organisms reflect contrasts in ‘visions of society’s common goods and a different balance between individual freedom and collective interests’
The third contribution of Leonelli’s work is demonstrating the governance around the risk regulation of GE organisms. Throughout the cases discussed in the book, the author presents the actors, interests and values surrounding the contrasts between those two narratives. As discussed in the book, different risk approaches to regulating GE organisms reflect contrasts in “visions of society’s common goods and a different balance between individual freedom and collective interests” (118). Leonelli provides a detailed discussion on how values are core in defining how uncertainties will be managed in risk regulatory activities when science cannot provide sufficient answers on the risks of GE organisms.
Through analysis of these different areas, the book explains that the evidence-based narrative is hegemonic because it pursues wealth maximisation and fosters trade liberalisation, bringing transnational regulatory convergence (224). At the same time, this vision is contested by advocates of socially accepted risk approaches, who point out that the gains of GE crop production have benefited mostly transnational companies and private firms (242).
Leonelli highlights that none of the narratives are “value-neutral nor objective” (29). Despite science playing an important role in assessing the risks involved in the use of GE organisms, there are still uncertainties in the face of this complex challenge. Thus, the design of the risk regulation framework is not a merely technocratic activity; it incorporates a non-scientific component. With that in mind, the book concludes that transnational conflicts regarding the regulation of agricultural biotechnologies will remain unsolvable since there is no perspective in building a universally agreeable discourse.
The argument presented is convincing and the vast range of cases selected successfully illustrates the author’s view. Readers do not need to be familiar with the risk regulation literature or the debates around the production of GE organisms to understand Leonelli’s book. Her writing successfully introduces the topic to a lay audience, while also offering a deeper analysis of the risk regulation debate in a range of contexts. Moreover, the case studies discussed in the chapters are good sources to be used for teaching, since they demonstrate well the nuances of the regulatory debate and how risk assessments deal with uncertainties.
Despite recognising the impossibility of building a consensus between the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic narratives, the book does not provide a policy orientation
In the conclusion, the author misses the opportunity to propose a solution to the clash of narratives. Despite recognising the impossibility of building a consensus between the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic narratives, the book does not provide a policy orientation on what actors from the risk regulation field should do to overcome the regulatory conflicts in the field.
That said, Transnational Narrative and Regulation of GMO Risks is an excellent read for those interested in risk regulation studies, and the “Transnational Legal Analysis” methodological framework can inspire research in the field. It is also a good read for those interested in the controversies surrounding agricultural biotechnologies and, more broadly, anyone keen on understanding how different actors shape governance debate in the globalised world.
Note: This review gives the views of the author and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image: Piece of Cake on Shutterstock.
