Biotechnology and regulation Biotechnology poses unique and considerable risks. Yet it prides itself on being adequate and judicious. At least five separate agencies regulate biotechnology in the US, coordinated through the White House Office on Environmental Policy. The recent relaxation of the US rules on classifying genetically engineered plants as potential pests, on the basis of their relation to non-controlled varieties, is a dangerous misapplication of the principle of familiarity. The most serious gap in the US framework is the lack of regulation of genetically engineered animals.
International regulation poses a great challenge and great hope.
In terms of substance a bio-safety protocol would mean the assertion of the precautionary principle concerning new technologies, instead of the principle of familiarity. In terms of process it would mean the public's notification about and participation in matters directly affecting its health and livelihood. Despite these advantages and precautions, biotechnology industries often try to suggest that concerns about the real and potential risks of biotechnology are not scientifically based. They are often unwilling to accept that advocacy groups are drawing properly on a complex understanding of ethical, social, economic and ecological factors. The impact of previous biotechnologies on the Third World has been particularly devastating.