Science, internationalization, and policy networks: Regulating genetically -engineered food crops in Canada and the United States, 1973--1998

The early history of the commercialization of genetically-engineered food crops in Canada and the United States is a cautionary tale that underlines the importance of adequate policy capacity. As of the late 1990s, precedent-setting regulatory responses had established far more systematic evaluations of environmental and food safety risks of new plant varieties but were failing to secure consumer acceptance at home and abroad. This case study compares the two countries' responses, as global pioneers in the use of these crops, to the three issues of environmental release, food safety, and food labelling.;The comparison reveals that despite expected pressures for Canadian policy choices to converge with American models, Canadian regulators have been given greater discretion and capacity to respond to the issues of environmental release and food safety. Domestic variables explain much of the substance of policy choices in both countries including these differences. Variation in the scope of regulation across issues and countries correlates with differing domestic policy networks. Further, the role of science as an idea and resource within domestic policy networks varies consistently with the degree of discretion and thus capacity given to regulators across issues. The effects of internationalization are largely in shaping preferences and contributing to resources exploited within domestic policy networks. This result suggests that it is difficult to gauge fully the impact of internationalization on domestic policy making without exploring its interaction with domestic institutions.;Guided by historical institutionalism, the case study includes an assessment of the inertia of policy legacies and the constraints on policy making imposed by policy boundaries. Policy legacies provide starting points for policy making, including levels of state capacity and autonomy. Policy boundaries (created by key moments of the intersection of ideas, interests, and institutions) shift advantage within policy networks.;Lessons from the case study include the conclusion that policy capacity may rest substantially on three interrelated factors: first, state capacity and autonomy; second, scientific legitimacy (the way in which science is used during policy making); and third, democratic legitimacy (conducting policy making in a manner that will be widely perceived as legitimate in a democratic sense).