Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T00:00:52.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Applying Safety Science to Genetically Modified Agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2011

By
Mathilde Bourrier
Edited by
Michael Baram  and
Mathilde Bourrier
Michael Baram
Affiliation:
Boston University Law School
Mathilde Bourrier
Affiliation:
University of Geneva
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Our main goal in this chapter is to determine whether decades of work in safety science and safety management have value for resolving controversies about GM agriculture. The implicit hypothesis is that there may be some commonalities between the safety issues posed by GM agriculture and other risky technologies, and potential benefits from using the toolbox of safety science that has been developed for more than thirty years in these other technological sectors. To avoid any misunderstanding, the discussion and points raised in this chapter do not cover the totality of the issues posed by genetic engineering. Our objective is to apply the safety science toolbox to the sharp end of the industry, that is, the crop growing practices on farmland.

Historically, safety science has dealt with high-risk technological enterprises (nuclear power industry, chemical industry, aviation industry) and more recently with medical practices (Vincent & De Mol, 2000; Amalberti, Auroy, & Berwick, 2005). Safety science has expanded over the years. It consists of research blending several disciplines, notably ergonomics, engineering, design, occupational health, sociology, or environmental studies. Issues like human and organizational failures, contributing factors to error production, implementation of risk/hazard mitigation strategies (such as risk analysis and modeling, event analysis, systematic incident reporting system, or safety culture and management surveys) are recurrent topics in safety science (Hale, 2006). Thus, another goal of this chapter is to further extend the reach of safety science to GM farming.

Type
Chapter
Information
Governing Risk in GM Agriculture , pp. 235 - 267
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amalberti, R., Auroy, Y, Berwick, D, Barach, P., Five System Barriers to Achieving Ultrasafe Health Care, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 142, No 9, 756–765, 2005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ansell, C. & Vogel, D., What's the beef? The contested Governance of European Food Safety, The MIT Press, 2006.Google Scholar
“Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the Post Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM), adopted on January, the 25th, 2006,”The EFSA Journal, No 319, 1–27, 2006.
Beckmann, V., Soregaroli, C., & Wesseler, J., Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 88, No 5, 1193–1199, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourg, D., Parer aux risques de demain: Le principe de précaution, Paris, Seuil, 2001.Google Scholar
Bourrier, M., Le nucléaire à l'épreuve de l'organisation, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1999.Google Scholar
Bourrier, M., Constructing Organizational Reliability: the Problem of Embeddedness and Duality, in Misumi, J; Wilpert, B.; Miller, R. (Eds.), Nuclear Safety: A Human Factors Perspective, London: Taylor & Francis, 25–48, 1999.Google Scholar
Bourrier, M., Organiser la fiabilité, Paris: L'Harmattan, 2001.Google Scholar
Bourrier, M., Bridging Research & Practice: The Challenge of Normal Operations Studies, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 10, No 4, 173–180, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, F., Genetically Modified Foods: Shared Risk and Global Action, in Herr Harthorn, Barbara and Oaks, Laury (Eds.), Risk, Culture, and Inequality, Westport, CT: Praeger, 185–207, 2003.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. & Rudolph, J. W, Design of High Reliability Organizations in Health Care, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 15, No 4–9, 2006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darr, D. & Chern, W, Analysis of Genetically Modified Organism Adoption by Ohio Grain Farmers, Paper presented at the 6th International conference on “Agricultural Biotechnology: New Avenues for Production, Consumption, and Technology Transfer,” Ravello, Italy, 11–14/07, 2002.
Fahlbruch, B., Wilpert, B, & Vincent, C, Approaches to Safety, in Vincent, C. & Mol, B. (eds.), Safety in Medicine, Oxford: Pergamon, Elsevier, 9–30, 2000.Google Scholar
Ferrières, M., Histoire des peurs alimentaires, du Moyen Âge à l'aube du XXème siècle, Paris, Seuil, 2002.Google Scholar
Ferrières, M., Risque alimentaire et conférence du consensus: l'expérience de 1669, in Lahellec, Cécile (Ed.), Risques et crises alimentaires, Paris, Lavoisier, 3–20, 2005.Google Scholar
Gaba, D. M., Structural and Organizational Issues in Patient Safety: A Comparison of Health Care to Other High-Hazard Industries, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No 1, 83–102, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaba, D. M.; Singer, S. J, & Rosen, A, Safety Culture: Is the Unit the Right Unit of Analysis? Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 35, No 1, 314–316, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M., Durant, J., & Allum, N., Worlds apart–The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US, Science, 285 (16 July), 384–387, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaudillière, J.-P. & Joly, P.-B., Appropriation et régulation des innovations biotechnologiques: Pour une comparaison transatlantique, Sociologie du travail, 48, 330–349, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, A.The Checklist, If something so simple can transform intensive care, what else can it do?. New Yorker Magazine: p. 86, Dec. 10, 2007.Google Scholar
Godard, O. (Ed), Le principe de précaution dans la conduite des affaires humaines, Paris, MSH/INRA, 1997.Google Scholar
Hale, A. Method in your madness: System in your Safety, Afscheidsrede, Technische Universiteit Delft, Sept. 15., 2006.
Heimann, L. C., Repeated Failures in the Management of High Risk Technologies, European Management Journal, Vol. 23, No 1, 105–117, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Institute of Medicine, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Jaspers, J.Nuclear Politics: Energy and the State in the United States, Sweden, and France, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, J.The Political Life Cycle of Technological Controversies, Social Forces, 67, 357–377, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joly, P.-B, Assouline, G., Kréziak, D., Lemarié, J., & Marris, C., L'innovation controversée: Le débat public sur les OGM en France, INRA, Grenoble (http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Direction/SED/Science-gouvernance, 2000).
Joly, P.-B., Les OGM entre la science et le public? Quatre modèles pour la gouvernance de l'innovation et des risques, Economie Rurale 266, 11–29, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, A., Génie génétique, agriculture et alimentation: entre peurs et savoirs, in Apfelbaum, M. (ed.), Risques et peurs alimentaires, Paris, Odile Jacob, 57–70, 1998.Google Scholar
Morgaine, K., Langley, J. D, & Mc Gee, R. O, The farmsafe Programme in New Zealand : Process Evaluation of year One (2003), Safety Science, Vol. 44, No 4, 359–371, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S., L. The Bakers of Paris and the Bread Question, 1700–1775, Durham: Duke University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, T. R. & Consolini, P., Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 19–47, 1991.Google Scholar
Porte, T. R. & Keller, A., Assuring Institutional Constancy: Requisite for Managing Long-Lived Hazards, Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No 6, 535–544, 1996.Google Scholar
Porte, T. R. & Metlay, D., Hazards and Institutional Trustworthiness: Facing a Deficit of Trust, Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No 4, 341–347, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, T. R., High Reliability Organizations: Unlikely, Demanding at At Risk, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 4, No 2, 60–72, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, T. R.Fiabilité et Légitimité soutenable, in Bourrier, M. (ed), Organiser la fiabilité, Paris, L'harmattan, 71–105, 2001.Google Scholar
Marvier, M., McCreedy, C, Regetz, J, & Kareiva, P, A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates, Science, 316, 1475, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichols, E. & Wildavsky, A., Nuclear Power Regulation: Seeking Safety, Doing Harm, Regulation, 45–53, 1987.Google Scholar
“Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the Post Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM), adopted on January, the 25th, 2006,” The EFSA Journal, No 319, 1–27, 2006.
Perin, C., Shouldering Risks, The Culture of Control in the Nuclear Industry, Princeton University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Perrow, C., Normal Accidents, Leaving with High Risk Technologies, New York, Basic Books, 1984 (2nd edition, 1999).Google Scholar
Pretty, J., The rapid emergence of genetic modification in world agriculture: contested risks and benefits, Environmental Conservation, Vol. 28, No 3, 248–262, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe, Final Report of the PABE research project (http://www.pabe.net), 2002.
Reason, J., The Chernobyl errors. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40, 201–206, 1987.Google Scholar
Reason, J., Human Error, Cambridge University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reason, J., Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.Google Scholar
Rees, J. V., Hostages of Each Other: The Transformation of Nuclear Safety Since Three Mile Island, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, K., Madsen, P, & Stralen, D., A Case of the Birth and Death of a High Reliability Healthcare Organization, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 14, No 3, 216–220, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochlin, G. I, The Social Construction of Safety, in Misumi, J., Wilpert, B. & Miller, R. (Eds.), Nuclear Safety: A Human Factors Perspective, London, Taylor & Francis, 5–23, 1998.Google Scholar
Rochlin, G. I., Porte, T. R., & Roberts, K, The Self-Designing High Reliability Organization: Aircraft Carrier Flight Operations at Sea, Naval War College Review, 40, 76–91, 1987.Google Scholar
Rochlin, G. I., Defining High Reliability Organizations in Practice: A Taxonomic Prologue, in New Challenges to Understanding Organizations, Roberts, K. (Ed.), Macmillan, New York, 11–31, 1993.Google Scholar
Roy, A., Les experts face au risque: Le cas des plantes transgéniques, Paris, La découverte, 2001.Google Scholar
Schulman, P., The Negociated Order of Organizational Reliability, Administration & Society, 25, 353–372, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setbon, M., Pouvoirs contre Sida, Paris, Seuil, 1993.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, P., Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1987.Google Scholar
Singer, S. J., Gaba, D. M, Jeffrey, J, Geppert, A, Sinaiko, A. D, Howard, S. K, & Park, K. C, The Culture of Safety in California Hospitals, in Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 12, No 2, 112–118, 2003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, S. J., Meterko, M, Baker, L, Gaba, D. M, Falwell, A, & Rosen, A, Workforce Perceptions of Hospital Safety Culture: Development and Validation of the Patient Safety Climate in Healthcare Organizations Survey, Health Research and Educational Trust, forthcoming. Health Serv Res. October; 42(5): 1999–2021, 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snook, S. A, Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of US Black Hawks over Northern Iraq, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobolevskaya, O., Food for thought: Russia joins the battle over GM products, Organisation of Asia-Pacific News Agency, March 7, 2007.Google Scholar
Starbuck, W. H. & Farjoun, M, Organization at the Limit, Lessons from the Columbia Disaster, Blackwell Publishing, 2005.Google Scholar
Thelin, A., Fatal Accidents in Swedish Farming and Forestry, 1988–1997, Safety Science, Vol. 40, No 6, 501–517, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touraine, A. et al., La prophétie anti-nucléaire, Paris, Seuil, 1980.Google Scholar
Vaughan, D., The Challenger Launch Decision, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Vincent, C. & Mol, B. (eds.), Safety in Medicine, Oxford, Pergamon, Elsevier, 2000.Google Scholar
Wynne, B., Expert discourses of risk and ethics on genetically manipulated organisms: the weaving of public alienation, Politea, No 62, 51–76, 2001.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability, California Management Review, 2, 112–117, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H., Collective Mind in Organizations Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, 357–381, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K., Managing the Unexpected, Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity, University of Michigan Business School Management Series, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, Wiley & Sons, 2001.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×