Regulating GM crops in the Netherlands: precaution as societal-ethical evaluation

Schenkelaars, Piet

doi:10.3152/147154305781779416

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of their specific criticisms have been accommodated in extra data requirements, especially for GM food safety (Schenkelaars, 2005). Partly through those regulatory changes, consumer groups have accepted the safety of GM foods already approved.…”

Section: Contending Policy Agendasmentioning

confidence: 98%

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite various institutional reforms in the European Union (EU), regulatory procedures for genetically modified (GM) products are still held up by disagreements among experts; claims about a product's safety often correspond to a narrower account of precaution than broader counterclaims from objectors. In the EU, we argue, these conflicts have given practical meaning to the concept of precaution, rather than any explicit interpretation of an a priori principle. Through dynamic tensions between the various claims and accounts of precaution, EU regulatory-expert procedures have identified and addressed more scientific uncertainties than before. Yet decisions about GM products still face legitimacy problems, because they arise fundamentally from the great burden placed on science as the basis for societal choices about agri-biotechnology.

show abstract

Section: Contending Policy Agendasmentioning

confidence: 98%

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dutch biotechnology and biosafety regulations use precautionary language not only on questions of scientific uncertainty, but also with regard to the possible social and ethical implications of GM research and production (Schenkelaars, 2005). Dutch assistance to Kenya included workshops, training, and expert assistance to create a comprehensive biotechnology regulation system.…”

Section: Kenya: Donor Pressures For Precautionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local variation or global convergence in agricultural biotechnology policy? A comparative analysis

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of attention to local variation in science and technology studies notwithstanding, there is a growing emphasis in the study of science policy on global convergence. In this paper, we undertake a multi-state comparative study of agricultural biotechnology policies, illustrating the continuing value of attending to policy variation and the factors that mold it. We acknowledge the growing influence of supranational entities and transnational cultural exchanges in shaping policy. However, our research does not indicate the homogenization of agricultural biotechnology policies across the globe. Instead, we find three broad models of agricultural biotechnology governance: 'liberal science-based' regulation, 'precautionary science-based' regulation, and 'social values-based' regulation. While states are constrained by global and local factors, they actively shape policies by blending parts of these three policy models in distinct ways.

show abstract

“…This procedure slowly elaborated assessment criteria and test requirements via case-by-case judgements, sometimes involving discussions with NGOs. For example, Dutch consumer groups and government advisors discussed weaknesses of data packages from companies (Schenkelaars, 2005). After biotechnology companies started submitting requests for GM food authorisation to the Netherlands in 1999, its food safety experts recognised the limitations of compositional data for risk assessment.…”

Section: Policy Shifts In Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recasting “Substantial Equivalence”:Transatlantic Governance of GM Food

Levidow

Murphy

Carr

2007

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When an intense public controversy erupted around agricultural biotechnology in the late 1990s, critics found more opportunities to challenge risk-assessment criteria and test methods for GM products. In relation to GM food, they criticised the concept of "substantial equivalence", which EU and US regulators had adopted as the basis for a harmonised "science-based" approach to risk assessment. Scientific uncertainty was framed in different ways by competing policy agendas. "Substantial equivalence" was contested and was eventually recast to accommodate some criticisms. To explain how the concept changed, this paper links two analytical perspectives. "Regulatory science" perspectives illuminate how the "scientification of politics" and "politicisation of science" led to shifts in the boundary between science and policy. "Governance" perspectives illuminate how the "collective problem" for policy was redefined to provide a new common ground for some stakeholders. Overall "substantial equivalence" was recast to govern the social conflict and address legitimacy problems of regulatory procedures.

show abstract

Regulating GM crops in the Netherlands: precaution as societal-ethical evaluation

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy

Local variation or global convergence in agricultural biotechnology policy? A comparative analysis

Recasting “Substantial Equivalence”:Transatlantic Governance of GM Food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About