From March 12th to 15th, 1999, the 14 members of the Consensus Conference on Genetically Modified Foods (Borgerpanelets - Konsensuskonference om genetisk modificeret mad) met to offer opinions on regulatory and ethical aspects of genetically modified foods.
Problems and Purpose
Background History and Context
In the mid-1980s, the Danish government created the Danish Board of Technology (DBT), a body of experts set up to assess technological innovations and their impact for Danish society. The DBT was asked to initiate reflections and to formulate recommendations on various technology-related issues. In order to involve citizens in its work, the DBT developed the format of consensus conference composed of lay citizens selected by lot, and gathered for a few days to deliberative on a topic (with the help of experts). In total, the DBT organized more than 20 consensus conferences between 1987 and 2011. The DBT was then dissolved by the Danish Government in 2011. Consensus conferences remain used in Denmark but by the successor of the DBT, the Danish Board of Technology Foundation. It has become a private operator, and not a public one. [1]
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The Danish Board of Technology, now the Danish Board of Technology Foundation, organized this process.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Methods and Tools Used
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The layman panel believes that authorisations for tests and production of genetically-modified organisms should be subjected to severe regulations for risk evaluation and requirements of efficient control. They were not in favour of a complete ban, but rather of very strict regulation. The regulation should be on controlling the effect of GM food on health and the environment, on guaranteeing full information to consumers, but also on how to regulate companies in that domain of activity in order to avoid monopolies, but also to guarantee good access to GM plants to developing countries. The panel also recommended that public funding for research in the field be increased with the objective of bringing the competence of the authority-granting and controlling authorities on par with the manufacturers. According to the panel, in 2003, genetically modified foods offered no — or only very few — direct advantages at present. However, the panel could not dismiss the notion that, in the long term, advantages will emerge in step with continued development of the technology. There is no information on how these recommendations have been integrated into new public policies. [1]
Analysis and Lessons Learned
See Also
Danish Citizens’ Jury on Genetically Modified Plants
References
External Links
Notes
This entry is based on the POLITICIZE dataset. More information can be found at the following links:
[1] Paulis, Emilien; Pilet, Jean-Benoit; Panel, Sophie; Vittori, Davide; Close, Caroline, 2020, "POLITICIZE Dataset", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z7X6GT, Harvard Dataverse, V1
[2] Pilet J-B, Paulis E, Panel S.,Vitori D & Close C. 202X The POLITICIZE Dataset: an inventory of Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) in Europe. European Political Science.
Data was sourced from OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.
