ABSTRACT
The release of genetically modified organisms generates both excitement and apprehension. There is always a tension between a desire to innovate and a fear of creating an uncontrollable outcome with devastating faultlines in the “natural” part of evolution. For this reason the biotechnology industry is subject to unusual scrutiny. It is also very mindful of its awesome responsibilities to creation. This is why there is a heated debate between the industry, regulators and active citizen groups over how far regulation should be based on proactive process-based standards, as opposed to the more familiar, reactive, product-based criteria (Tait and Levidow, 1992; Levidow and Tait, 1992). Because of both genetic complexity and uncertainty of outcome, the precautionary approach is preferred, simply because cause and effect are so difficult to isolate. Indeed, the more such organisms are created and released, the more complicated cause and effect linkages become. Thus there is a presumption that an environmental hazard is possible rather than that proof should always first be required. This puts the onus on the producer to show that no known analogue of an experimental genetic creation has caused demonstable harm.
