IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v25y2007i6p880-895.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Europeanising Advisory Expertise: The Role of ‘Independent, Objective, and Transparent’ Scientific Advice in Agri-Biotech Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Les Levidow
  • Susan Carr

Abstract

Since various crises concerning food safety in the European Union (EU), institutional reforms have been designed to regain public confidence in regulatory decisions and their expert basis. By Europeanising advisory expertise, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was also intended to help harmonise ‘science-based regulation’ and thus facilitate EU decisions. In evaluating agri-biotech products during 2003 – 05, however, the EFSA procedure extended previous expert disagreements rather than overcome them. The EFSA was designed to demonstrate that expert advice would be ‘independent, objective, and transparent’; yet tensions arose between expert experience versus independence, between transparency versus objectivity, and between harmonisation versus precaution. These conflicts have been shaped by the dominant problem diagnosis, which favours a narrow expert consensus within a specific policy view. Alternative problem diagnoses suggest that expertise should instead be pluralised, so that norms and uncertainties become more explicit. Pressure for EU reform manifests tensions between the dominant and alternative problem diagnoses.

Suggested Citation

  • Les Levidow & Susan Carr, 2007. "Europeanising Advisory Expertise: The Role of ‘Independent, Objective, and Transparent’ Scientific Advice in Agri-Biotech Regulation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 25(6), pages 880-895, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:25:y:2007:i:6:p:880-895
    DOI: 10.1068/c05123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c05123
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c05123?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony R Zito, 2001. "Epistemic communities, European Union governance and the public voice," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(6), pages 465-476, December.
    2. Erik Millstone & Patrick van Zwanenberg, 2001. "Politics of expert advice: Lessons from the early history of the BSE saga," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 99-112, April.
    3. Richard Perkins & Eric Neumayer, 2004. "Europeanisation and the Uneven Convergence of Environmental Policy: Explaining the Geography of EMAS," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 22(6), pages 881-897, December.
    4. Steve Rayner, 2003. "Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 163-170, June.
    5. Grace Skogstad, 2001. "The WTO and Food Safety Regulatory Policy Innovation in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 485-505, September.
    6. Les Levidow & Susan Carr & David Wield, 2005. "European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 261-276, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    2. Roeland Bracke & Tom Verbeke, 2007. "What Distinguishes EMAS Participants? An Exploration of Company Characteristics," Working Papers 2007.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    4. Richard Perkins & Eric Neumayer, 2008. "Fostering Environment Efficiency through Transnational Linkages? Trajectories of CO2 and SO2, 1980–2000," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(12), pages 2970-2989, December.
    5. Finardi, Corrado & Pellegrini, Giuseppe & Rowe, Gene, 2012. "Food safety issues: From Enlightened Elitism towards Deliberative Democracy? An overview of EFSA’s “Public Consultation” instrument," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 427-438.
    6. Abels, Gabriele, 2002. "Experts, Citizens, and Eurocrats Towards a Policy Shift in the Governance of Biopolitics in the EU," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 6, December.
    7. Flannery, Wesley & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & O’Mahony, Cathal & Ritchie, Heather & Twomey, Sarah, 2015. "Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 86-95.
    8. Umbrello, Steven & Bernstein, Michael J. & Vermaas, Pieter E. & Resseguier, Anaïs & Gonzalez, Gustavo & Porcari, Andrea & Grinbaum, Alexei & Adomaitis, Laurynas, 2023. "From speculation to reality: Enhancing anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies (ATE) in practice," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    9. Michael Barnett, 2016. "Accountability and global governance: The view from paternalism," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 134-148, June.
    10. Victor Pelaez, 2005. "Science And Governance In The National Systems Of Innovation Approach," Working Papers 0010, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.
    11. Shobita Parthasarathy, 2011. "Whose knowledge? What values? The comparative politics of patenting life forms in the United States and Europe," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 267-288, September.
    12. Diels, Johan & Cunha, Mario & Manaia, Célia & Sabugosa-Madeira, Bernardo & Silva, Margarida, 2011. "Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 197-203, April.
    13. Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    14. Martin Thomas Falk & Eva Hagsten, 2020. "Time for carbon neutrality and other emission reduction measures at European airports," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1448-1464, March.
    15. Alam, Thomas, 2009. "La vache folle et les vétérinaires. Récit d’une victoire inattendue et paradoxale sur le terrain de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 90(4).
    16. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165.
    17. Szajkowska, Anna, 2009. "From mutual recognition to mutual scientific opinion? Constitutional framework for risk analysis in EU food safety law," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 529-538, December.
    18. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    19. Patrícia Tourais & Nuno Videira, 2016. "Why, How and What do Organizations Achieve with the Implementation of Environmental Management Systems?—Lessons from a Comprehensive Review on the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:25:y:2007:i:6:p:880-895. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.