BRIEFING REPORT – INPUT FOR THE CO-CREATION PROCESS Citizens’ values and opinions in relation to Precaution and Innovation Results from citizen’ meetings in the Norway, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Bulgaria The RECIPES project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824665 Citizens’ values and opinions in relation to Precaution and Innovation Authors Aske Palsberg, The Danish Board of Technology Søren Gram, The Danish Board of Technology Laura Elisabet Drivdadal, University of Bergen Jeroen Pieter Van der Sluijs, University of Bergen Zoya Damianova, ARC fund Ventseslav Kazorev, ARC Fund Giovanna Declich, Knowledge & Innovation Rosanne Edelenbosch, Rathenau institute Petra Verhoef, Rathenau institute Tijs Sikma, Rathenau institute Project coordination and editing provided by Ecologic Institute Manuscript completed in [October 2019] Document title BRIEFING REPORT – INPUT FOR THE CO-CREATION PROCESS Work Package WP 1 Task 1.3.3 Document Type Internal Report (Milestone 1.3, public discourse) Date 9 October 2019 Acknowledgments & Disclaimer This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824665. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. i Table of content 1 Introduction 1 2 Results from the five citizens meetings 1 2.1 Testimonies from the 5 countries 2 3 Methodology 3 4 Discussion points 3 5 Annexes 4 5.1 Briefing report - Norway 5 5.1.1 Executive Summary 6 5.1.1.1 Introduction 6 5.1.1.2 Norway 7 5.1.2 Results from the questionnaire 9 5.1.2.1 Demographics 9 5.1.2.2 Reason for participation 10 5.1.2.3 Genetically modified organisms 10 5.1.2.4 Nanotechnology 11 5.1.2.5 Pesticides 13 5.1.2.6 Precaution and innovation 14 5.1.2.6.1 Perceptions of precaution and innovation 14 5.1.2.6.2 Balancing precaution and innovation 15 5.1.2.6.3 Applying the PP 16 5.1.2.6.4 Developing the PP, and Regulation and control of technologies 18 5.1.2.7 Final remarks 20 5.1.3 Themes from the group interviews 22 5.1.3.1 Precaution and innovation 22 5.1.3.1.1 Is there a trade-off between the two? And if so, which should be prioritized? 22 5.1.3.1.2 Should a precautionary approach also cover ethical and moral aspects and assessments of possible social consequences? 22 5.1.3.1.3 Who should be involved when the precautionary principle has been invoked? 23 5.1.3.1.4 Should the burden of proof be on the state or the service/technology provider? 23 5.1.3.1.5 How much certainty is needed before it is justified to ban a product or technology? 24 5.1.3.1.6 Do you trust the politicians and authorities to regulate technology? 24 ii 5.1.3.1.7 Who should be involved in the further development of the precautionary principle? 25 5.1.3.1.8 How do you want uncertainty with technology to be regulated? 25 5.1.3.1.9 Do you think development of technology can be controlled? 26 5.1.3.1.10 Other comments 26 5.1.3.2 Summary 26 5.1.4 Conclusions 28 5.2 Briefing report - Denmark 30 5.2.1 Executive Summary 31 5.2.1.1 Introduction 32 5.2.1.2 Denmark 32 5.2.2 Results from the questionnaire 32 5.2.2.1 Demographics 33 5.2.2.2 Reason for participation 33 5.2.2.3 View on Genetically modified organisms 34 5.2.2.4 View on Nanotechnology 36 5.2.2.5 Pesticides 38 5.2.2.6 Precaution and innovation 39 5.2.2.7 Final remarks 46 5.2.3 Themes from the group interviews 46 5.2.3.1 Precaution and innovation 46 5.2.3.1.1 Is there a trade-off between the two? And if so, which should be prioritized? 46 5.2.3.1.2 Should a precautionary approach also cover ethical and moral aspects and assessments of possible social consequences? 47 5.2.3.1.3 Who should be involved when the precautionary principle has been invoked? 47 5.2.3.1.4 Should the burden of proof be on the state or the service/technology provider? 48 5.2.3.1.5 How much certainty is needed before it is justified to ban a product or technology? 48 5.2.3.1.6 Do you trust the politicians and authorities to regulate technology? 49 5.2.3.1.7 Who should be involved in the further development of the precautionary principle? 49 5.2.3.1.8 How do you want uncertainty with technology to be regulated? 49 5.2.3.1.9 Do you think development of technology can be controlled? 49 5.2.3.2 Summary 50 5.2.4 Conclusions 51 5.3 Briefing report – Italy 52 iii 5.3.1 Executive Summary 53 5.3.1.1 Introduction 54 5.3.1.2 Italy 54 5.3.2 Results from the questionnaire 55 5.3.2.1 Demographics 55 5.3.2.2 Reason for participation 56 5.3.2.3 Genetically modified organisms 56 5.3.2.4 Nanotechnology 58 5.3.2.5 Pesticides 60 5.3.2.6 Precaution and innovation 61 5.3.2.7 Final remarks 63 5.3.3 Themes from the group interviews 64 5.3.3.1 Precaution and innovation 64 5.3.3.1.1 Is there a trade-off between the two? And if so, which should be prioritized? 64 5.3.3.1.2 Should a precautionary approach also cover ethical and moral aspects and assessments of possible social consequences? 65 5.3.3.1.3 Who should be involved when the precautionary principle has been invoked? 66 5.3.3.1.4 Should the burden of proof be on the state or the service/technology provider? 68 5.3.3.1.5 How much certainty is needed before it is justified to ban a product or technology? 69 5.3.3.1.6 Do you trust the politicians and authorities to regulate technology? 69 5.3.3.1.7 Who should be involved in the further development of the precautionary principle? 70 5.3.3.1.8 How do you want uncertainty with technology to be regulated? 72 5.3.3.1.9 Do you think development of technology can be controlled? 73 5.3.3.1.10 Further issues emerged during the debate 73 5.3.3.2 Summary 74 5.3.4 Conclusions 75 5.4 Briefing report - The Netherlands 77 5.4.1 Executive Summary 78 5.4.1.1 Introduction 79 5.4.1.2 The Netherlands 79 5.4.2 Results from the questionnaire 80 5.4.2.1 Demographics 80 5.4.2.2 Reason for participation 81 iv 5.4.2.3 Genetically modified organisms 81 5.4.2.4 Nanotechnology 82 5.4.2.5 Pesticides 82 5.4.2.6 Precaution and innovation 83 5.4.2.7 Final remarks 84 5.4.3 Themes from the group interviews 84 5.4.3.1 Precaution and innovation 85 5.4.3.1.1 Is there a trade-off between the two? And if so, which should be prioritized? 85 5.4.3.1.2 Should a precautionary approach also cover ethical and moral aspects and assessments of possible social consequences? 85 5.4.3.1.3 Who should be involved when the precautionary principle has been invoked? 85 5.4.3.1.4 Should the burden of proof be on the state or the service/technology provider? 86 5.4.3.1.5 How much certainty is needed before it is justified to ban a product or technology? 86 5.4.3.1.6 Do you trust the politicians and authorities to regulate technology? 87 5.4.3.1.7 Who should be involved in the further development of the precautionary principle? 87 5.4.3.1.8 How do you want uncertainty with technology to be regulated? 88 5.4.3.1.9 Do you think development of technology can be controlled? 88 5.4.3.2 Summary 88 5.4.4 Conclusions 89 5.5 Briefing report - Bulgaria 90 5.5.1 Executive Summary 91 5.5.1.1 Introduction 92 5.5.1.2 Bulgaria 92 5.5.2 Results from the questionnaire 94 5.5.2.1 Demographics 94 5.5.2.2 Reason for participation 95 5.5.2.3 Genetically modified organisms 96 5.5.2.4 Nanotechnology 97 5.5.2.5 Pesticides 100 5.5.2.6 Precaution and innovation 100 5.5.2.7 Final remarks 104 5.5.3 Themes from the group interviews 104 5.5.3.1 Precaution and innovation 104 v 5.5.3.1.1 Is there a trade-off between the two? And if so, which should be prioritized? 104 5.5.3.1.2 Should a precautionary approach also cover ethical and moral aspects and assessments of possible social consequences? 106 5.5.3.1.3 Who should be involved when the precautionary principle has been invoked? 106 5.5.3.1.4 Should the burden of proof be on the state or the service/technology provider? 108 5.5.3.1.5 How much certainty is needed before it is justified to ban a product or technology? 109 5.5.3.1.6 Do you trust the politicians and authorities to regulate technology? 111 5.5.3.1.7 Who should be involved in the further development of the precautionary principle? 111 5.5.3.1.8 How do you want uncertainty with technology to be regulated? 112 5.5.3.1.9 Do you think development of technology can be controlled? 113 5.5.3.2 Summary 114 5.5.4 Conclusions 115 5.6 Citizens meeting guide 117 5.6.1 Introduction to the Citizens meetings 119 5.6.1.1 Purpose 119 5.6.1.2 Staff requirements and assignment of roles 119 5.6.1.3 Procedure of the RECIPES Citizens meeting 120 5.6.1.4 Draft program 120 5.6.1.5 Questions 121 5.6.1.6 Group interview guide 121 5.6.1.7 Procedure after the Citizens meeting 123 5.6.1.8 Results 124 5.6.1.9 Detailed program 124 List of tables Table 1 - Opinions about the Genetically Modified Organisms ...................................