Questions about the governance of risk are critical to the disputes over GMOs, and these issues are compounded by the international character of the disputes, which include questions about:
. The authority, role, and credibility of national and international regulatory authorities;
. The reconciliation of divergent national views of GMO technologies and international free trade;
. The special circumstances and needs of developing countries in relation to GMO technologies;
. The social, cultural, and economic dimensions of GMO agricultural technologies, as well as health and safety risks in the context of an emerging precautionary approach;
. The influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global GMO politics and legal regimes;
. The role and influence of consumers;
. The role of scientists and the acceptability of technical expertise;
. The authority and credibility of international organizations in addressing GMO regulatory controversies.
A number of developments compound the difficulties of developing a system for governance of GMO risks that is both effective and enjoys widespread public confidence in the international context. First, the agricultural biotechnologies are [*526] new. While their proponents present substantial arguments in favor of the safety and benefits of GMOs, opponents claim that products have not been adequately tested and present many uncertainties and potential risks. At the same time, there are no well-developed or widely accepted regulatory principles or strategies for addressing the uncertainties posed by the new agricultural biotechnologies. The precautionary principle invoked to address uncertainty has so many different formulations and interpretations that its practical utility is uncertain, and will remain so until its meaning has been clarified by authoritative international interpretation, whether legislative or, more likely, judicial.
Further, the risks (as well as the benefits) of technologies have many dimensions: they include not only specific environmental and health effects, but broader cultural, economic, and social consequences. Domestic GMO regulatory authorities have a limited mandate focused on environmental and health risks. They tend to ignore the broader cultural, social, and economic dimensions that are of wide concern to the public and many NGOs. Internationally, the WTO has followed a similar, rather restricted focus. The implementation of the Biosafety Protocol remains an open issue. Appropriate institutional and legal arrangements for governance of NGOs must also address the concerns and interests of the many non-governmental constituencies that have developed positions regarding the governance of GMO agricultural technologies. These include industry and a great variety of NGOs from both developed and developing countries concerned with environmental, consumer, agricultural, economic, and other issues.
The Colloquium represented an initial effort to advance understanding of the key legal and institutional issues presented by the current and emerging international conflicts over GMO regulation. Participants sought to assess the role and performance of existing institutions, to lay out options for creating better strategies for regulatory governance, and to explore the possibility of a neutral non-governmental forum in which different stakeholders could participate in a process for designing and shaping potential solutions. The papers presented called for research on the following questions:
. What are the existing regulatory approaches in Europe, the United States, other Organization for Economic Cooperation [*527] and Development (OECD) countries, and developing countries, and the most important differences among them?
. What are the existing international fora for addressing and resolving disputes over GMOs, including the WTO, the E.U., the Biodiversity Convention, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?
. What are the social, cultural, and economic dimensions of GMO risks and regulation as well as the scientific dimensions of environmental health and safety effects?
. What are the different views, interests, and roles played by different non-governmental institutions (including business firms) regarding GMO risks and regulations, and their implications for governance?
. What are the implications of the expanded conception of risk for governance arrangements, including the issues of trust in science, industry, and regulatory institutions raised by increased NGO advocacy?
. What are the key analytic and normative principles, such as the precautionary principle and environmental impact assessment, and what is their relevance for governance?
. What role do consumers play in decisions about access to public information and the use and labeling of genetically modified products?
. What are alternative governance options for addressing GMO regulatory issues and mechanisms for harmonizing or resolving differences in existing approaches and methods?