Sound science and regulatory measures in risk assessment appear to be insufficient to address the public’s disquiet regarding genetically modified foods. In response, international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations have begun to embrace a more holistic approach that now considers the scientific, regulatory and local requirements as well as the social and ethical impact of modern food biotechnologies. One enduring difficulty in incorporating ethical and social issues in policy development has been its procedure. Of particular concern is the question of how to manage an exploration of often complex and controversial topics in such a way that the different voices and social and ethical norms of citizens and stakeholders are taken into account without unduly stifling or endangering good policy development and decision-making. This paper discusses the benefits and risks of one emerging framework that can be constructed around four mutually supportive, universal ethical principles set out in an ethical matrix. A systematic approach can lead to deliberations that are rational and inclusive, while being at the same time open and collaborative. Such a framework might compare well with existing scientific risk management practices. Taken together, an integration of both the scientific and the ethical-social could be of paramount importance for a modern food biotechnology that has global ambitions, but which can easily be fractured by local or social incompatibilities without public participation and support
