Deficits of Public Deliberation in U.S. Oversight for Gene Edited Organisms

Abstract

Environmental releases of gene edited (GEdOs) and gene drive organisms (GDOs) will likely occur under conditions of high uncertainty and in complex socioecological systems. Therefore, public deliberation is especially important to account for diverse interpretations of safety, risks, and benefits; to draw on experiential and public wisdom in areas of proposed release; to ameliorate dangers of technological optimism; and to increase the public legitimacy of decisions. Yet there is a “democratic deficit” in the United States' oversight system for GEdOs and GDOs, as unconflicted experts, publics, and skeptical stakeholders are most often excluded from decision‐making and unavailable to critically examine potential risks and benefits or raise broader concerns about socioeconomic or cultural impacts. This article argues for the need to open up decision‐making for GEdOs and GDOs, discusses the challenges for doing so within the current oversight framework, and finally, proposes institutional, policy, and attitudinal changes that are likely important for overcoming barriers to public deliberation.

Identifying sustainability assessment parameters for genetically engineered agrifoods

“…In fact, the regulation and policy aspect is the most important part to foster sustainability, which is closely related to all the dimensions of sustainable development and all aspects of the ethical, legal, and social‐economic implications of GE agrifoods that should be considered in making policy and decisions. Governance and oversight as well as implementation capacity helps ensure safety and transparency as well as improves public confidence in trust in the oversight of GE agrifoods more broadly (Kuzma, 2021b; Kuzma & Grieger, 2020).…”

“…At the same time, however, there are significant challenges in the United States associated with establishing institutional and policy mechanisms for a more holistic approach to reviewing GE agrifoods and their sustainability. Currently, their oversight is fragmented among the federal agencies and based on a narrow set of risk criteria often constrained to the old laws under which biotechnology products are regulated (Kuzma, 2021a, 2021b; Kuzma, 2022). Risk issues are fragmented and narrow such as “plant pest risk” (USDA), food safety (direct toxicity or allergenicity) (FDA), and new animal drug efficacy and safety.…”

“…For example, NASEM (2017) suggested a common portal for emerging biotech products, especially those that are novel and exhibit high complexity, through which products would be submitted to enhance agency collaboration in covering a wider set of risk and benefit parameters. Kuzma (2016, 2021b) proposed a leading role for the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as a place for coordinated review of biotech products that could also enhance external expert and public input into decision making. OSTP has the authority to convene the federal agencies and could be an appropriate oversight decision‐maker for sustainability assessment given its mission “to maximize the benefits of science and technology to advance health, prosperity, security, environmental quality, and justice for all Americans.” This more holistic approach to assessment could also apply to other countries.…”

“…At the same time, however, there are significant challenges in the United States associated with establishing institutional and policy mechanisms for a more holistic approach to reviewing GE agrifoods and their sustainability. Currently, their oversight is fragmented among the federal agencies and based on a narrow set of risk criteria often constrained to the old laws under which biotechnology products are regulated (Kuzma, 2021a(Kuzma, , 2021bKuzma, 2022) House, 2022). This order promises to "improve food and energy security and drive agricultural innovation while mitigating the impacts of climate change" and to "increase the use of renewable agricultural materials" (White House, 2022).…”

Gene editing and agrifood systems

“…These ethical issues, as well as the societal issues, have been subordinated in governance systems for gene editing (Helliwell, Hartley and Pearce, 2019). There is an apparent paucity of policy spaces for public consideration of the ethical and normative questions associated with first generation GM and gene-edited crops (Thompson, 2003;Kuzma, 2021).…”