How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary

Agriculture and Human Values

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 29-43

  Levidow, Les ^a   Carr, Susan ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Ethics; Genetically modified organisms (GMOs); Risk

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000345855     PISSN: 0889048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1007394812312     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. ACRE (1994). Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment: Annual Report, no. 1: 1993/94. London: Department of the Environment.
2. ACRE (1995). Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment: Annual Report, no. 2: 1994/95. London: Department of the Environment.
3. Anon. (1990). Editorial, Agro-Industry High-Tech 1 (1): 3-4, Milano: Teknoscienze.
4. Balk, R. (1993). Public values and risk assessment, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agricultural biotechnology: A public conversation about risk (pp. 87-96). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
5. Bartle, I. (1991). Herbicide-tolerant plants: Weed control with the environment in mind. Haslemere, Surrey: ICI Seeds [now Zeneca].
6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
7. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1996). Life as a planning project, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne (eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 139-153). London: Sage.
8. Breyer, H. (1992). Committee on Energy, Research and Technology: Draft response to Bangemann report [CEC 1991], December 1992. Luxembourg: European Parliament, type-script.
9. BWG (1990). Biotechnology's bitter harvest: Herbicide tolerant crops and the threat to sustainable agriculture. Biotechnology Working Group. Available from Environmental Defense Fund, 257 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010 (price $10).
10. Cantley, M. (1992). The evolution of policy for biotechnology in the European Community, 1982-92, in J. Durant (ed.), Biotechnology in public: A review of recent research (pp. 18-27). London: Science Museum.
11. CEC (1991). Promoting the competitive environment for the industrial activities based on biotechnology within the Community. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
12. CEC (1993a). Communication from the Commission concerning Bovine Somatotropin. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 16 September 1993, COM (93) 331 final.
13. CEC (1993b). Towards sustainable development, 5th Environmental Action Programme;
14. also in Official Journal of the European Communities, C 138 (17 May): 5-98.
15. Crouch, M. (1992). The very structure of scientific research mitigates against developing products to help the environment, the poor and the hungry, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4 (2): 151-158.
16. Dommelen, A. van, ed. (1996). Coping with deliberate release: The limits of risk assessment. Tilburg: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs (ICHPA, Pastoor Smitsstraat 25, NL-5014 RH Tilburg, Netherlands. E-mail: r.vonschomberg@kub.nl).
17. EC (1996). Commission Decision 96/158/EC of 6 February concerning the placing on the market of a product consisting of a GMO, hybrid herbicide-tolerant swede-rape seeds, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 37 (15 February): 30-31.
18. ECAS (1992). Le Citoyen Européen, No. 17: Biotechnologie, Brussels: Euro-Citizen Action Service.
19. EEC (1990). Council directive on the deliberate release to the environment of genetically modified organisms, Official Journal of the European Communities L 117 (8 May): 15-27.
20. GAB (1992). Gruppo di Attenzione sulle Biotechnologie, Bioethics in Europe. Luxembourg: Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA), European Parliament.
21. GAEIB (1995). Group of Advisors on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology to the European Commission. Luxembourg/Brussels: European Communities.
22. Gebhardt, E., Rapporteur (1995). Opinion of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for the Committee on Energy, Research and Technology: Communication on 'Biotechnology and the White Paper'. Luxembourg: European Parliament, 27 June 1995, type-script.
23. Genetics Forum (1989). Submission to Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, typescript.
24. GIBiP (1990). The green industry biotechnology platform, AgroLndustry High-Tech 1 (1): 55-57. Milano: Teknoscienze.
25. Gillespie, I. (1994). Regulation and risk assessment of deliberate release of GMOs in the UK, Umweltauswirkungen Gentechnisch Veränderter Organismen (pp. 60-74). Vienna: Umweltbundesamt, proceedings of 1993 conference.
26. Goodman, R. M. (1989). Biotechnology and sustainable agriculture: Policy alternatives, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agricultural Biotechnology at the Crossroads (pp. 48-57). Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
27. Gressel, J. (1992) Genetically-engineered herbicide-resistant crops: A moral imperative for world food production, AgroFood-Industry Hi-Tech 3 (6): 3-7. Milano: Teknoscienze.
28. Grove-White, R. (1991). The emerging shape of environmental conflict in the 1990s, RSA Journal 139: 437-447. London: Royal Society of Arts.
29. Grove-White, R. & Szerszynski, B. (1992). Getting behind environmental ethics, Environmental Values 1 (4): 285-296.
30. Haerlin, B. (1990). Genetic engineering in Europe, in P. Wheale & R. McNally (eds.), The Bio-revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora's Box? (pp. 253-261). London: Pluto Press.
31. Hansard (1990). Standing Committee H, House of Commons, committee stage of Environmental Protection Bill, 6 March.
32. Hansen, M. (1990). Biotechnology and milk: Benefit or threat? Mount Vernon, NY: Consumer Policy Institute.
33. Hobbelink, H. (1991). Biotechnology and the future of world agriculture. London: Zed.
34. Hobbelink, H. (1995). Biotechnology and the future of world agriculture, in V. Shiva & I. Moser (eds.), Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology (pp. 226-233). London: Zed.
35. Holland, A. (1990). The biotic community: A philosophical critique of bioengineering, in P. Wheale & R. McNally (eds.), The Bio-revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora's Box? (pp. 166-174). London: Pluto Press.
36. Johnson, G. & Thompson, P. (1991). Ethics and values associated with agricultural biotechnology, in B. Baumgardt & M. Martin (eds.), Agricultural biotechnology: Issues and choices (pp. 121-137). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
37. King, D. (1995). The limits of bioethics, Science as Culture 5 (2): 303-313.
38. Lawrence, R.H. (1988). New applications of biotechnology in the food industry, in Biotechnology and the food supply (pp. 19-45). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Levidow, L. (1991a). Cleaning up on the farm, Science as Culture 2 (4): 538-568.
40. Levidow, L. (1991b). Biotechnology at the amber crossing, Project Appraisal 6 (4): 234-238.
41. Levidow, L. (1992). What values in the GEMMOs?, in D. Stewart-Tull & M. Sussman (eds.), Regem 2: The release of genetically-engineered microorganisms (pp. 10-12). London: Plenum Press.
42. Levidow, L. (1995a). Codes, commodities and combat: Agricultural biotechnology as clean surgical strike, in S. Elworthy, K. Anderson, I. Coates, P. Stephens & M. Stroh (eds.), Perspectives on the environment, Vol. 2 (pp. 31-33). London: Avebury.
43. Levidow, L. (1995b). Scientizing security: Agricultural biotechnology as clean surgical strike, Social Text 13 (3): 161-180.
44. Levidow, L. (1995c). Whose ethics for agricultural biotechnology?, in V. Shiva & I. Moser (eds.), Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology (pp. 175-190). London: Zed.
45. Levidow, L. & Tait, J. (1991). The greening of biotechnology: GMOs as environment-friendly products, Science and Public Policy 18 (5): 271-280;
46. reprinted in V. Shiva & I. Moser (eds.), Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology (pp. 121-138). London: Zed.
47. Levidow, L. & Tait, J. (1992). The release of genetically modified organisms: Precautionary legislation, Project Appraisal 7 (2): 93-105.
48. Levidow, L. & Tait, J. (1993). Advice on biotechnology regulation: The remit and composition of ACRE, Science and Public Policy 20 (3): 193-209.
49. Levidow, L., Carr, S., von Schomberg, R. & Wield, D. (1996a). Bounding the risk assessment of a herbicide-tolerant crop, in A. van Dommelen (ed.), Coping with deliberate release: The limits of risk assessment (pp. 81-102). Tilburg: ICHPA.
50. Levidow, L., Carr, S., von Schomberg, R. & Wield, D. (1996b). Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe: Harmonization difficulties, opportunities, dilemmas, Science and Public Policy 23 (3): 135-157.
51. LGC/DTI (1991). Biotechnology: A plain man's guide to the support and regulations in the UK. Hobsons/Laboratory of the Government Chemist, Department of Trade and Industry.
52. MacDonald, J.F. (ed.) (1989). Agricultural biotechnology at the crossroads. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
53. Macer, D. (1996). Public acceptance and risks of biotechnology, in A. van Dommelen (ed.), Coping with deliberate release: The limits of risk assessment (pp. 227-245). Tilburg: ICHPA.
54. Mantegazzini, C. (1986). The environmental risks from biotechnology. London: Pinter.
55. Mellon, M. (1991). Biotechnology and the environmental vision, in J.F. MacDonald (ed.), Agricultural biotechnology at the crossroads (pp. 66-70). Ithaca, NY: NABC.
56. Millstone, E.M., Brunner, E. & White, I. (1994). Plagiarism or protecting public health?, Nature 371: 647-648.
57. NEAD (1989). Food Matters, special features 1 and 2. Norwich: Norfolk Education for Action and Development/Farmers Link.
58. Nelkin, D. (ed.) (1985), The language of risk: Conflicting perspectives on occupational health. London: Sage.
59. Rainbow Group (n.d. ca. 1988). Deliberate release into the environment of genetically engineered organisms [leaflet]. Brussels.
60. RCEP (1992). Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 14th Report. Genhaz: A system for the critical appraisal of proposals to release genetically modified organisms into the environment. London: HMSO.
61. Regal, P. (1986). Models of genetically engineered organisms and their ecological impact, in H. Mooney & J. Drake (eds.), Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii (pp. 111-129). New York: Springer Verlag.
62. Regal, P. (1996). Metaphysics in genetic engineering, in A. van Dommelen (ed.), Coping with deliberate release: The limits of risk assessment (pp. 15-32). Tilburg: ICHPA.
63. Rip, A. (1986). Controversies as informal technology assessment, Knowledge 8: 349-371.
64. Roy, D.J., Old, R.W. & Wynne B.E. (1991). Bioscience-society. Schering Foundation Workshop Proceedings. Chichester: John Wiley.
65. SAGB (1990). Community policy for biotechnology: Priorities and actions. Brussels: CEFIC.
66. Salter, L. (1988). Mandated science: Science and scientists in the making of standards. London: Kluwer.
67. Schomberg, R. von (1993). Political decision-making and scientific controversies, in R. von Schomberg (ed.), Science, politics and morality: Decision-making and scientific uncertainty (pp. 7-26). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
68. Schwarz, M. & Thompson, M. (1990). Davided we stand: Redefining politics, technology and social choice. London: Harvester.
69. Shiva, V. & Moser, I. (eds.) (1995). Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology. London: Zed.
70. Stemerding, D. (1993). How to deal with the implications of human genome research?, in H. Haker, R. Hearn & K. Steigleder (eds.), Ethics of human genome analysis: European perspectives (pp. 217-235). Tubingen: Attempto Verlag.
71. Stemerding, D. & Jelsma, J. (1996). Compensatory ethics for the Human Genome Project, Science as Culture 5 (3): 335-351.
72. Sterrenberg, L. (1992). Introduction of genetically engineered organisms into the environment: The Dutch discussion, ms. The Hague: NOTA.
73. Straughan, R. (1992). Ethics, morality and crop biotechnology, Typescript available from Zeneca [formerly ICI Seeds], from DG XII-E-1 or from the author at the University of Reading.
74. Straughan, R. (1995a). Ethics, morality and crop biotechnology, 1: Intrinsic concerns, Outlook on Agriculture 24 (3): 187-192.
75. Straughan, R. (1995b). Ethics, morality and crop biotechnology, 2: Intrinsic concerns, Outlook on Agriculture 24 (4): 233-240.
76. Tait, J. & Levidow, L. (1992). Proactive and reactive approaches to regulation: The case of biotechnology, Futures 24 (3): 219-231.
77. Warnock, M., rapporteur (1993). The ethical implications of the use of performance-enhancers in agriculture and fisheries. Opinion of the Group of Advisors on Ethical Aspects of Biotechnology, Commission of the European Communities, 12 March 1993.
78. Welin, S. (1993). Some issues in research ethics, Studies in Research Ethics 2: 59-75. Göteborg: Centre for Research Ethics.
79. Wheale, P. & McNally, R. (1993). Biotechnology policy in Europe: A critical evaluation, Science and Public Policy 20 (4): 261-279.
80. Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context, Science, Technology and Human Values 19: 1-17.
81. Wynne, B. (1995). Technology assessment and reflexive social learning: Observations from the risk field, in A. Rip et al. (eds.), Managing technology in society (pp. 19-36). London/New York: Pinter.