Regulating gene editing in agriculture and food in the European Union: Disentangling expectations and path dependencies

Abstract

This study investigates how proponents and critics of gene editing in agriculture and food (GEAF) employ expectations-discourses with future-oriented impacts-as they compete to secure desired futures and mobilise social processes and resources towards their goal of influencing GEAF (re)regulation and agro-food systems within the EU. We draw on 27 semi-structured interviews and 53 Euractiv media articles to identify and analyse GEAF proponents' and critics' responses to the 2018 European Court of Justice regulatory decision that GEAF will be regulated as genetically modified organisms. Despite similar themes of environmental sustainability, food security and winners and losers in agricultural innovation systems, proponents' and critics' discourses reflect divergent expectations of GEAF.We argue that both groups link their expectations with concerns about path dependencies in technological innovations and agro-food systems, which serve to influence emerging political, public and elite perspectives on GEAF. Although to some extent performative, these concerns offer important insights that should be This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Are intellectual property policies for gene‐edited crops fit for purpose? The perspectives of German scientists

“…van der Meer et al (2023: 95) argue that interpreting the ECJ ruling as a ban on gene‐edited crops, “reads too much into the judgement,” and that the final implications of the ruling are “far from settled.” However, they concede that, although the future implications are uncertain, the most common interpretation of the ruling is that gene‐edited crops are currently treated as transgenic crops. Other studies tend to confirm this interpretation (Lindberg, Bain, & Selfa, 2023a; Macnaghten & Habets, 2020; Meyer & Heimstadt, 2019).…”

“…Perhaps the most controversial socio‐economic dimension of agricultural biotechnology is intellectual property. Whether discussing transgenic breeding or the newer gene‐editing breeding techniques, skeptics of the technology will inevitably argue that those benefits are unlikely to be achieved, in part, because of intellectual property policies (Lindberg, Bain, & Selfa, 2023; Rock et al, 2023; Montenegro de Wit, 2020; Macnaghten & Habets, 2020). Acknowledging these concerns, an editorial in Nature notes that an alternative approach to managing intellectual property for gene‐edited crops is possible because so many of the gene‐editing patents are held by universities.…”

Gene Editing in Agriculture: Social Concerns, Public Engagement, and Governance

“…Acknowledging that publics should question and contest the underlying assumptions and problem framings surrounding the use of gene editing in agriculture represents the most expansive approach to public engagement in the special issue. These articles contribute to recent STS literature that interrogates how publics are defined, constructed, by whom, and for what purpose in the context of engagement on emerging technologies (Chilvers and Pallett 2018;Middelveld et al 2023;Schwarz-Plaschg 2018;Macnaghten 2021;Macnaghten et al, 2019;Chilvers and Kearnes 2020;Lindberg et al 2023). Mampuys's call for "re-politicization" or a reengagement with politics around biotechnology use in agriculture is a well-situated proposal to address such persistent wicked policy problems and to stimulate public engagement and more transparent governance.…”

Assembling perspectives on gene edited crops: Implications for governance and agricultural research

“…for their potential to deliver broad benefits to all three dimensions of sustainable agriculture (CAST 2018;Clapp and Ruder 2020;Garland 2021;Smyth 2022;Lindberg et al 2023a).…”

“…By projecting technologies into the future, social actors aim to exert influence by garnering material -i.e. capital investments, research collaborations, grants, tech and science intellectual property access, favorable governance frameworks, etc.and non-material resources, such as positive opinions by social groups and supportive media framings, that will build interest and strategic alliances to bring an emerging technology to commercial success beyond the laboratory Lindberg et al 2023a). Expectations of potential technological impacts are particularly influential when they serve to reduce complexity and uncertainty, which is often the case early in the innovation process (Deuten and Rip 2000).…”