BY

For the oversight of emerging technologies and their products, public comment periods on proposed federal rules is one of the most popular methods of gaining public insight into public values and opinions about emerging technologies in federal rulemaking. Many science and technology scholars suggest that this level of participation is not effective, or broad enough according to democratic and ethical principles. In this analysis, we set out to examine this issue using the case study of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) in the food supply and recent proposed rule changes coming from the primary regulatory body for these products, the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Services (USDA-APHIS). This paper addresses the issue of public participation looking at the following areas of research: 1) what are the substantial differences between the old and new proposed regulations for GEOs, 2) what stakeholder groups comment on proposed rules 3) what do the comments say about the proposed rule (as expressed through formal public comments on the Federal Register notice) and 4) to what degree should these comments be take