Use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture remains
controversial, particularly in the European Union. Researchers suggest that
all members of society need to be engaged in the debate on GMOs to achieve
agreement on policy decisions. They propose voluntary sustainability
reporting as a suitable method for conducting public dialogue.


A number of public concerns continue to be raised about the impacts of
genetically modified plants on the environment, including: unknown effects
on human health, ethics of interfering with nature, freedom of consumer
choice and patenting life forms. These concerns make it essential for the
whole of society to participate in policy decisions about GMOs. The
researchers argue that understanding the risks, management of these risks
and the science behind genetic engineering need to be debated in society on
an ongoing basis.

Debate about GMOs could be framed as a sustainability issue, using the
method of voluntary sustainability reporting as practised by some businesses
when setting out their corporate accountability and social responsibilities.
The advantage of this approach is that it is necessary to include the
participation of a wide range of multiple stakeholders, including the
manufacturing and service sectors, investors, banks and insurance
representatives, religious, environmental and labour organisations and
governments.

A framework for voluntary sustainable reporting, the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI)1 already exists. The benefits to society of using the GRI
are that it enables all stakeholders to hold a dialogue with a company and
make that company accountable for its actions. Reporting within the
guidelines centres around three sustainability indicators: social, economic
and environmental performance.

The study suggests that a specific set of GRI guidelines could be produced
for GMOs used in agriculture. This could be used as a guide during the
debate of relevant issues, leading to new perspectives on this controversial
topic.

One expectation of using a GRI-type approach is that there will be greater
transparency during the early research and development stages. It is thought
that debate at this point could shape the development of the technology and
behaviour of the company by wider society. This technique, known as
Constructive Technology Assessment, should also benefit companies because it
is less costly to make changes at these early stages.

Costs to companies developing new technologies are often substantial. These
costs are usually recovered through patents and intellectual property
rights, which give companies exclusive use of their products and processes.
This is a major obstacle to using the sustainability reporting method and is
an issue that needs to be resolved. It is one of the reasons why financial
stakeholders are key to the GMO debate.
www.checkbiotech.org