Evaluating the 2008 consensus conference on genetically modified foods in Taiwan

Abstract

Genetically modified foods have become one of the most popular topics for deliberative exercises involving ordinary citizens worldwide. This paper examines the Taiwanese consensus conference on GM foods held in June 2008, and the implications and limitations of the public deliberations. The consensus conference facilitated multiparty dialogues and enhanced citizens' knowledge, and affected their attitudes. This study demonstrates the ways contextual factors have influenced the outcome of the citizens' deliberative practices, including the government's conventional technocratic decision-making style, the strong influence of the U.S. government, the political and technological culture, the government's framing of economic development concerns, and a lack of pressure from civil society to compel the government to formally respond to their concerns. The consensus conference had a limited effect on policy decision-making, and seemed to serve as a socio-political experiment.

Deliberation and Policy-Making: Three Ways to Think About Minipublics’ Consequences

“…She explains that deliberative practices are used to show that EU policy-making is inclusive and open to citizens’ inputs but that they do not affect its main decisions. Other case studies also find no evidence of the implementation of any recommendation by public authorities (Fan, 2013).…”

“…Yet, the proliferation of case-specific analyses has led to a wide variety of understandings of the nature of the consequences minipublics can have on the policy-making process. For instance, some studies analyze the content of subsequent decisions taken by a national authority (Fan, 2013), while others focus on the effects on a regional administrative system (Gourgues, 2010) or the event’s visibility in the public sphere (Felicetti et al, 2016). These different understandings of consequences make it difficult to draw general lessons about the role minipublics can and do play in policy-making.…”

How deliberative designs empower citizens’ voices: A case study on Ghana’s deliberative poll on agriculture and the environment

“…According to them, wicked problems “have neither of these clarifying traits; and they include nearly all public policy issues—whether the question concerns the location of a freeway, the adjustment of a tax rate, the modification of school curricula, or the confrontation of crime” (p. 160). Examples of deliberation about “wicked problems” include biobanking in British Columbia (Walmsley, 2010), the US National Citizens’ Technology Forum (Anderson, Delborne, et al, 2013a), public deliberation on genetically modified (GM) maize in southern Africa (Mwale, 2006), a consensus conference on GM foods in Taiwan (Fan, 2015), and deliberative public engagement events among Canadians on cancer drugs (Bentley et al, 2019).…”

Public participation and democratization: effects on the production and consumption of science and technology

“…Taking case studies of conferences on genetically modified foods held in France in 1998 (Marris and Joly 1999), in Denmark, Canada and Australia in 1999 (Dryzek and Tucker 2008;Einsiedel, Erling, and Breck 2001) in Japan in 2000 (Nishizawa 2005), in the United States in 2001 and 2002 (Dryzek and Tucker 2008), and in Taiwan in 2008 (Fan 2015) as examples, and considering the literature that has critically evaluated these mechanisms over the past decade, I will examine the characteristics of institutionalized participation.…”

“…They are basically individuals, "representative citizens" of society. In the reviewed cases, citizens were chosen from volunteers who responded to public convocations or invitations, either randomly or representing society in terms of gender, age, occupation, and geographical location (Dryzek and Tucker 2008;Einsiedel, Erling, and Breck 2001;Fan 2015;Nishizawa 2005). Several authors (Felt and Fochler 2010;Irwin 2006;Laurent 2009;Marres and Lezaun 2011) have shown that the selection of participants pursued the ideal of "neutral citizen," not ideologically or politically conditioned in relation to the topic under discussion; people who held previous positions were excluded.…”