Abstract
New Zealand's 1996 Hazardous Substance and New Organisms (HSNO) Act defines environmental effects as physical, social, and cultural. However, recent debates in this country about the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) revealed the Act's fault lines. Relying on probabilistic assessments of risk, New Zealand's GMO regulator, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), found itself unable to address adequately cultural critiques of GMOs or to incorporate assessments of cultural risks alongside physical ones. This challenged the state's legitimacy and its ability to govern biotechnology. It also opened the door to new roles for Māori stakeholders who have become engaged in both state-contesting and state-governing capacities. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with multiple Māori stakeholders as well as field-based observations by the second author within the ERMA, this paper explores the GM debate as a critical moment in the redefinition of state power, wherein both the evidentiary basis and the terms of negotiation through which GMOs were deemed acceptable were challenged. We also consider the ongoing role of cultural principles as key to new and emerging forms of governance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
