Genetically modified (GM) plants are
a remarkable example of the
controversial interactions of science,
society and politics, as the plants leave
laboratories and enter into our everyday lives bearing their load of
promises and concerns.
THE CHALLENGE OF GM-PLANTS AS BIO-OBJECTS:
NEW TOOLS for GOVERNANCE
BACKGROUND
In 2013, 175 million ha of GM crops
were grown globally (11% of the
earth’s cultivated area). Of these,
soybean, maize, cotton and canola are
the most widespread, though less
grown in the EU. After productivity
traits, interest lies in food quality
improvement and in nutriceutical and
pharmaceutical compound production.
In the EU, to meet public demands for
safety and to manage (perceived/true)
risks, the cultivation, marketing and the
traceability and labeling of the GM
products are regulated (EC Reg.
2001/18, 2003/1829, 2003/1830). A
case-by-case evaluation of GM plants is
recommended by EFSA, while public
research suffers from funding cuts.
CURRENT UNDERSTANDING
Currently a GMO is defined as “an
organism in which the genetic material
has been altered in a way that does not
occur naturally through fertilization
and/or natural recombination”
(2001/18/EC). Use, labeling,
traceability and co-existence with nonGM crops are regulated. However,
there is disagreement over the ways in
which the European Union’s policy on
crop isolation is implemented in
practice. What counts as sustainable
development that enables both GM and
non-GM crops to co-exist is not simply
a scientific matter but is shaped by
cultural and political values: the
boundary between science and politics
has become increasingly blurred.
FUTURE TARGETS FOR POLICY
The recent development of new
techniques for manipulating plant
genomes (NPBT) may result in a new
classification of a ‘modified’ plant
requiring a revision of GMO definition
and regulation. Questions raised
include: compared with GM plants, are
NPBT plants more ‘natural’, more ecocompatible and more acceptable to
consumers? How should public views
and scientific discoveries be
acknowledged in food policy decisions?
What is the role of GM crops in the
enhancement of global food security?
How is it possible for policy to enable
the coexistence of GM, conventional
and organic crops? Where do the risk
and liability for GM crops lie?
KEY CHALLENGES IN CURRENT GOVERNANCE INSTRUMENTS INCLUDE
1. The definition and limits of genetic modification as a form of plant tissue needs ongoing FUTURE
review as the
science develops
TOOLS
2. The requirement of engaging the public and the role of public views and science in decision-making not so much to do with the
technology per se but with the structure of the agro-food system and how choices are made now and for the future
3. The co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops and food products needs to be defined and made
workable and the interests of different groups supporting these agro-technologies recognised
Novel biological materials become both recognizable and valuable through the twin processes of Bio-objectification
and Bio-identification. Subsequent to these processes we encounter stabilised bio-objects that obtain the qualities
of being knowable, recognizable, and transferable. GMOs pose specific regulatory challenges because they disturb
conventional biological boundaries. In doing so, they create concerns (over risk) and demands (e.g. over patenting
designation) that have to be resolved for their successful stabilization. The debates over GMOs illustrate how a bioobject continually crosses the boundary back and forward between safe and unsafe. The core issues are outlined
below:
1. BIO-OBJECTIFICATION (i.e. the ranges of experimental work which is devoted to the exploration and
fashioning of new ‘bio’, new forms of life).

Possibility of living artifacts challenging the distinction between natural and unnatural plant
tissues, such as debates over cis-genics

How such bio-objects articulate with and depend on pesticide and herbicide systems

x different variations of the same kind
Which objects are distinct in kind, which are

Co-existence requires identification and classification of tissue for traceability purposes
2. BIO-IDENTIFICATION (i.e. the social labour that is undertaken to ensure the (co-)relative identity of bioobjects to other forms of life is made clear)

Classification of plant organisms into genetically modified and others

Ownership and plant-breeders’ rights need to be clarified

Implications and acceptability of bio-identification for product labeling and GMOs in the food
chain

Identification of GM-free zones and liability for risks incurred
3. STABILISED BIO-OBJECTS
The stabilization of GMOs within different European andxother countries has not been fully secured. Pressures
from the pro-GMO networks or ‘proportionate’ regulation has been met by counter arguments about
unknown risks that make proportionality difficult to define. Policy has focused on providing scientific
assessment but trust will only be secured by recognition of the value debates involved in GMO technologies.
The work on public understanding of GMOs has concentrated on a deficit-model: such work shows that public
anxieties are less to do with the science per se and more to the institutional context driving the GMO project.
The current relative stability of the field can be described in the following terms reflecting differing
safe/unsafe boundaries:

Widely sold and used GM crops, first generation GM crops commonplace

Second generation GM crops allow expansion of GMO markets for major firms

Third generation GM crops producing medication for health care systems create new types of
regulatory requirements: there appears to be greater acceptance of medical application of GMOs
than for food

Consensus on sustainable plant biotechnology yet to be secured
CASE Studies
GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS
BACKGROUND
As ‘creations’ of biology innovation, GM plants bear crucial features of ‘bio-objects’: they evoke the language of the ‘unnatural’, being
constructed and manipulated creatures on the fine line between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’/’artificial’, and having hybridity; they
promise enhancement of human life quality; they challenge the conventional natural, cultural, scientific and institutional orderings; they
have potential to move between domains, shifting from agriculture, nutrition, health and industry.GM food illustrates the controversial
relation between the intrinsic uncertainty of the scientific approach and the demand of citizen-consumers to use products of science
innovation that are known to be safe. Thus far, reluctance towards GM food has been accompanied with a higher acceptance of medical
applications of biotechnology. Nowadays, nutriceutical compounds as well as medicines and vaccines can be produced by GM plants
(GMO of new generations), thus challenging the boundary between agriculture and medicine and proposing a new understanding of the
meaning of ‘food ‘ itself: the recursive relation between bio-objectification and bio-identification work is evident here.
NEW PLANT BREEDING TECHNIQUES (NPBTS) FOR GENE TRANSFER INTO PLANTS
BACKGROUND
Following the increased knowledge of plant genomes, new tools for gene transfer (among these trans- and cis-genesis and genome
editing) have been developed. When genes and related sequences phylogenetically close to the host species are introduced and insertion
of foreign and unnecessary DNA is reduced, as in the case of cis-genesis, a different regulation from ‘traditional’ GMOs have been
pursued. By stressing the origins of the gene transferred (same species or crossable vs. foreign origins), cis-genic supporters claim for the
application of a product-based approach versus the technical-based approach adopted by EU regulation. In 2012, the EFSA’s GMO panel
concluded that similar hazards can be associated with cis-genic and conventionally bred plants. This opinion, however, has not yet been
translated into a less stringent EU regulation. Thus, a crucial question emerges: should crop plants be classified according to their
properties or according to the technology used for producing them? The answer will set a precedent for future governance.
GM CROPS RESISTANT TO DISEASES AND PESTICIDES: PROMISES AND CONSTRAINTS
BACKGROUND
Considering the environmental and economic costs of chemical use in agriculture to protect crops from (virus, bacterium and insect)
diseases and weed damage, production of intrinsically resistant plants to pathogens and biocides is one of the main goals of genetic
engineering in agriculture. Knowledge of disease resistance genes to be transferred has been a main effort of the recent ‘genomic era’.
“More biology and less chemicals” is thus the promise of this biotech research. On the other hand, GM crops of first generation that are
able to tolerate herbicides –thus allowing the use of chemicals- are also available. In both types of GM crops, field testing, the necessary
final step of the research, are necessary. This is challenging in Europe, because of the time and high costs necessary to complete the
assays. Moreover, social resistance, which in some Member States has resulted in vandalism against some field tests, is hindering the
European research on GM crops in general and on plant resistance in particular. Regulations more responsive to the needs of research are
sought by the scientific community. This is likely to be only a partial solution which will need much wider consideration of regulation
and governance of the wider food production system of which GM is only a part. This would make for a more effective dialogue across
different and competing interests.
RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION POLICY
BIO-OBJECT IMPLICATIONS
The bio-objects network has identified FOUR related challenges for
Issues concerning GM crops are still
instantiating RRI practice in the GMO sector
controversial in public and scientific
Transparency: research on GMO safety should not be dependent on the
positions of large corporations
discussion. Whilst the majority of
scientists agree on GM crops’ safety,
reports on health risks associated with
Engagement: redefine the issue from specific focus on GMO and open to a
GMO consumption do appear. Doubts
wider debate relating to food production which will foster more effective
on reliability of research results and on
engagement across all parties including ‘the public’
unpredicted results of the research make
Gender equality: the poorest farmers of developing countries are often
women: policy must address their interests in decision-making regarding GMOs
people reluctant to use GM food. This
makes lay people, in their safety
considerations, dependent on
Science education: there is a need to go beyond the deficit model which still
interpretations and explanations provided
predominates and examine value positions, and in particular from an ethics
by scientists and the media. Accordingly,
perspective to ask about risks and if decisions about future impact are made
GMOs may be regarded as ‘bio-objects’
under conditions of some ignorance, what institutional structures are needed and
that cross back and forward the
and how should the precautionary principle be refreshed?
boundaries of ‘safe/unsafe’ and of ‘well
known/still to be known’.
USING BIO-OBJECT FRAMEWORK in RRI POLICY MAKING
THE CONCEPTS OF ‘BIO-OBJECTS’, ‘BIO-OBJECTIFICATION’ AND ‘BIO-IDENTIFICATION ‘SEEM TO BE HIGHLY
RELEVANT TO POLICY MAKING. THE WAY THE WORLD IS UNDERSTOOD, CLASSIFIED AND DIVIDED INTO OBJECTS
AFFECTS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY. POLICIES SELECTED DEPEND ON VIEWS ADOPTED REGARDING THAT
REALITY, OR PERHAPS ’REALITIES’. THE PRACTICES OF LABELLING AND THE POLICIES ON COEXISTENCE, FOR
EXAMPLE, DEPEND ON CERTAIN VIEWS REGARDING WHAT BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES COUNT AS ‘GM CROPS’. NEW
APPLICATIONS, SUCH AS CIS-GENICS IN WHICH GM-TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED FOR PRODUCING PLANTS THAT
COULD BE THE RESULT OF A ‘NATURAL’ BREEDING, CHALLENGE OUR VIEWS REGARDING THE CLASS OF GM
CROPS. SHOULD BIO-IDENTIFICATION IN THIS CASE RELY MORE ON PROPERTIES OF THE OUTCOME OR THE PROCESS
OF PRODUCTION ITSELF? THE IDEA OF BIO-OBJECTS AND BIO-OBJECTIFICATION REVEAL THE INTELLECTUAL
CLASSIFICATION PROCESSES BEHIND UNDERSTANDINGS REGARDING PRODUCTS OF NEW BIOTECHNOLOGIES.
THUS, THEY ARE A USEFUL TOOL FOR A BETTER, MORE OPEN AND MORE TRANSPARENT DECISION-MAKING.
Case Study Authors: Lucia Martinelli, Helena Siipi and Małgorzata Karbarz, COST Action Network