Search

This study asks how competing knowledge claims access and influence the assessments of GMO applications, drawing on experiences from Norway. Norway is one of the most restrictive countries on the GMO issue, with potential lessons and insights for a broader audience. A central focus is what is accepted as relevant and legitimate knowledge in this type of decision-making processes. The case study examines whether there have been changes in the evaluations made over time and how these changes may be explained. Among explanatory factors is the emergence of new arguments and the effect of external developments, primarily changes in the EU. Norway resembles the most reluctant EU member states, which may, however, be losing ground within the EU in the aftermath of the so-called moratorium on GMOs. Second, the argumentation applied in GMO evaluations has become increasingly varied and comprehensive in the space of a period of about 10 years. Norways Gene Technology Act differs from similar acts in its additional criteria that applications must be judged according to their effect on sustainable development and societal utility. This potentially provides Norwegian authorities with a carte blanche in rejecting the applications, but it is also clear that the authorities prefer to harmonise the procedures with those of the EU. A third central feature affecting the Norwegian GMO evaluations is that no important sub-national groups in Norway stand to lose from eventual rejections of GMO applications. Hence, there is room for a quite diverse number of knowledge claims. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]