Dutch regulators have generally made a sharp distinction between scientific-technical and societal-ethical aspects of regulating agribiotechnology, but many developments have blurred or challenged that distinction. For field releases, risk assessment depended on agroecological norms regarding what plausible effects would be unacceptable. In the mid-1990s, stakeholder controversies continued over how to regulate genetically modified (GM) crops, as well as their food and feed use. Since the late 1990s, opposition by public-interest groups has led to new priorities for risk research, and tighter criteria for evidence. Involvement of nongovernmental organisations, whether or not actively sought or appreciated by Dutch regulators, contributed to analytical rigour in risk assessment. Public debate also resulted in proposals for an integral societal-ethical evaluation framework (ISEEF) for biotechnology products, and market demands for the co-existence of GM, conventional and organic crops.Piet Schenkelaars is with Schenkelaars Biotechnology Consultancy,

No abstract

No abstract