BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATION AS SYMBOLIC NORMALIZATION

In the 'risk' controversy around agricultural biotechnology, at stake is the legitimacy of this innovation, particularly the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It has faced potential obstacles to R&D and an eventual market for products. In response, risk management institutions have been designed to anticipate hypothetical hazards; to overcome the perceived abnormality of GMOs; to avoid political protest; and to standardize safety criteria. In the UK and its EC framework, process-based legislation has had a precautionary content, designed to consider a broad range of ecological uncertainties which could be translated into technical evidence of safety. Given that all stages of risk management entail environmental value judgements, its procedures bear some potential for greater public involvement. Since process-based regulation was enacted in 1990, industry has attacked it for hindering the commercial competitiveness of the European biotechnology industry. This attack more likely aims to limit the precautionary content, to normalize GMOs, and to preclude democratizing risk assessment-though at the risk of jeopardizing its public credibility. These dilemmas of risk management arise from its implicit role in legitimizing a contentious form of techno-scientific 'progress'.