Fig. 2

Positioning of main stakeholders influencing the construction of Brazil’s 1995 and 2005 biotechnology laws. The x and y axes represent the level of interest and power of influence, respectively, in shaping the Brazilian regulatory framework. a depicts the scenario of the discussions that preceded the creation of Law 8.974 / 1995 and (b) the positioning of the different stakeholders in shaping the present law 11.105 / 2005. When comparing these two scenarios, it is worth noting the increase in the power of influence of the agribusiness sector and of research institutions, together with the increase of interest of the Brazilian government and agribusiness politicians. This was mainly due to the clamor of large commodity planters, such as soybeans, who saw neighboring countries like Argentina increase their productivity using herbicide-resistant GMO seeds. In this context, groups opposed to the adoption of this technology, such as NGOs and politicians linked to social movements, who had a significant influence on decision making in scenario A, lost strength in scenario B and influenced media to a lesser extent. Both the public and the media began to perceive the benefits of technology for an agricultural country like Brazil, as well as the hypothetical risks. However, public opinion proved to be more resistant to a significant change, possibly as a consequence of the intense NGOs and social movements influence during the shaping of the first law. CTNBio appears only at moment B because it was created with the law 8.974 / 1995. Seed companies (SC); Research institutes (RI); Politicians aligned to agribusiness (PA); Politicians aligned to social movements (PS); Public opinion (PO); Commodity agroindustry (CA); Government (GOV); Media (M); NGOs and Social Movements (NG); National Biosafety Technical Committee (CTNBio)