Although introduced more than two decades ago, agricultural biotechnology remains contentious. New technologies bring uncertainty concerning their risks and promises and create new policy process challenges for governments assessing risks and benefits in the face of contradictory evidence. Stakeholders typically claim to have evidence to support their positions, which often focuses on risks and benefits. Using the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), this study examines the commercialization process for a genetically modified variety of eggplant in India focusing on evidence in support of claims concerning risks and benefits in policy narratives. It examines how evidence and risk are used within policy narratives and explores possible links with setting and plot since the latest NPF research situates evidence and risk in that context. Findings indicate that stakeholders use evidence, risks, and benefits differently, often in connection with other narrative elements and strategies. Proponents de-emphasize risks and exclusively highlight benefits while opponents invoke multidimensional risk. Evidence was used to portray heroes, villains, victims, and beneficiaries and, since plot situates characters in time and space, there is some support for situating evidence within plot. Risks and benefits were employed as a narrative strategy to expand or limit the scope of the policy issue and were articulated through policy problems. Setting in policy narratives includes policy problems lending support to situating risks and benefits within setting. Findings have implications on the role of evidence and risks and benefits within policy narratives.
