Regulating biotechnological risk, straining Britain’s consultative style

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 307-324

  Levidow, Les ^a   Carr, Susan ^a   Wield, David ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0003641017     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/136698799376754     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. ACRE (1994) Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment: Annual Report no.1:1993/94. London: DoE.
2. ACRE (1995) Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment: Annual Report no.2:1994/95. London: DoE.
3. ACRE (1997) Newsletter, December, London: DETR.
4. ACRE (1998) Annual Report no.4:1996/97. London: DETR, March (available from biotech@detr- biotech.demon.co.uk; webpages at http://www.shef.ac.uk/~doe).
5. AgrEvo (1997) AgrEvo UK comments on the discussion paper … [MAFF, 1997]. September
6. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.
7. Beck, U. (1996) Risk society and the provident state, in S. Lash and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environm ent and Modernity, pp. 27-43. London: Sage.
8. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1995) Reflections on scientific advice and EC transboundary pollution policy, Science & Public Policy 22(3), 195-203.
9. Brickman, R., Jasanoff, S. and Thomas, I. (1985) Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulation in Europe and the United States, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10. BSPB et al. (1997) Code of practice on the provision of information relating to genetically modified crops, BSPB/NFU/UKASTA.
11. BSPB et al. (1998) Guidelines for Growing Newly Developed Herbicide Tolerant Crops, British Society of Plant Breeders, Ely, Cambridgeshire, UK.
12. DETR (1998) Government announces fuller evaluations of growing genetically modified crops, News Release, 21 October, London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
13. DoE/ACRE (1993) Guidance note no.1: The Regulation & Control of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms, London: DoE.
14. DoE/ACRE (1994) Guidance note no.2: Fast Track Procedures for Certain GMO Releases, London: DoE.
15. Eden, C., Jones, S. and Sims, D. (1983) Messing About in Problems, London: Pergamon.
16. EC (1996a) 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.
17. EC (1996b) Commission Decision 96/281/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the placing on the market of genetically modified soybeans …, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 107, 30 April, 10.
18. EC (1997a) Regulation 258/97/EC of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 43, 14 February, 1-6.
19. EC (1997b) Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June adapting to technical progress for the second time Council Directive 90/220/EEC, Official Journal of the European Communities, 27 June, L 169, 72-3.
20. EC (1998) Council Regulation 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms …, Official Journal of the European Communities, 3 June, L 159, 4.
21. EEC (1990) Council Directive 90/220 on the Deliberate Release to the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 117, 8 May, 15-27.
22. ENDS (1998a) The spiralling agenda of agricultural biotechnology, ENDS Report 283, 18-30.
23. ENDS (1998b) Monsanto faces prosecution, stirs concern over civil liberties, ENDS Report 284, 3.
24. ENDS (1999) Government still struggling to master the biotechnology agenda, ENDS Report 292, 28-32.
25. Genetics Forum (1995-1998) The Splice of Life, bimonthly bulletin.
26. Gillespie, I. (1994) Regulation and risk assessment of deliberate release of GMOs in the UK, Umweltauswirkungen Gentechnisch Veranderter Organismen, pp. 60-74. Vienna: U mweltbu ndesamnt.
27. Gliddon, C. (1995) Herbicide resistance in common UK crops, Safety Considerations of Herbicide- Resistant Plants to be Placed on the European Market, pp. 8-17. Brussels: Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology.
28. Green Alliance (1994) Why Are Environmental Groups Concerned about Release of GMOs into the Environment? London: Green Alliance.
29. Greenberg, S. (1998) The British Test. Washington, DC: Greenberg and Quinlan Research, O ctober [report commissioned by Monsanto and leaked to the press].
30. Haigh, N. (1994) The introduction of the precautionary principle in the UK, in T. O’Riordan and J. Cameron (eds) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, pp. 229-51. London: Earthscan.
31. HC (1999) 5th report of the Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, GMOs and the Environment: Coordination of Government Policy, Vol. I, Report and Proceedings of the Committee, HC 384-I. London. The Stationery Office.
32. HMG (1990) This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Environmental Strategy, London: Her Majesty’s Govt/HMSO, Cm 1200.
33. HL (1993) House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, Regulation of the UK Biotechnology Industry and Global Competitiveness, HL Papers 80-I & 80-II, volumes I & II London: HMSO.
34. HL (1998) EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture, 2nd report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, session 1998-1999, HL paper 11-I, December, London: The Stationery Office.
35. Jasanoff, S. (1986) Risk Management and Political Culture, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
36. Jasanoff, S. (1995) Product, process, or programme: three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology, in M. Bauer (ed.) Resistance to New Technology, pp. 311-31. Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity Press.
37. JNCC (1997) Response from the Conservation Agencies [to MAFF, 1997]. Peterborough: English Nature/Joint Nature Conservancy Committee.
38. Levidow, L. (1995a) Whose ethics for agricultural biotechnology?, in V. Shiva and I. Moser, (eds) Biopolitics: A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology, pp. 175-90. London: Zed.
39. Levidow, L. (1995b) Safely testing safety? The Oxford baculovirus controversy, BioScience 45(8), 545-51; reprinted in Ad van Dommelen (ed.) Coping with Deliberate Release: The Limits of Risk Assessment, pp. 121-36. Tilburg: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs, 1996.
40. Levidow, L. and Carr, S. (1996) UK: disputing boundaries of biotechnology regulation, Science & Public Policy 23(3), 164-70.
41. Levidow, L., Carr, S., von Schomberg, R. and Wield, D. (1996) Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe: harmonization difficulties, opportunities, dilemmas, Science & Public Policy 23 (3), 135-57.
42. Levidow, L., Carr, S., von Schomberg, R. and Wield, D. (1997) European biotechnology regulation: framing the risk assessment of a herbicide-tolerant crop, Science, Technology and Human Values 22(4), 472-505.
43. Levidow, L. and Tait, J. (1992) The release of genetically modified organisms: precautionary legislation, Project Appraisal 7(2), 93-105.
44. Levidow, L. and Tait, J. (1993) Advice on biotechnology regulation: the remit and composition of ACRE, Science and Public Policy 20(3), 193-209.
45. Macrory, R. (1997) National Biotechnology Conference: Report of the Rapporteur, London: DoE.
46. MAFF (1997) Weed Control on the Farm: Management of Genetically Modified Herbicide- Tolerant Plants. Consultation document, July.
47. NFU (1995) Report of the Biotechnology Working Party. London: National Farmers Union, June.
48. NFU (1998) Report of the Biotechnology Working Group. London: National Farmers Union, March.
49. OECD (1986) Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. Paris: OECD.
50. OECD (1993a) Field Releases of Transgenic Plants, 1986-1992: An Analysis. Paris: OECD.
51. OECD (1993b) Safety Considerations for Biotechnology Scale-Up of Crop Plants. Paris: OECD.
52. O’Riordan, T. and Wynne, B. (1987) Regulating environmental risks: a comparative perspective, in P.R. Kleindorfer and H.C. Kunreuther (eds) Insuring and Managing H azardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond, pp. 389-410. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
53. OST (1997) The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making, Office of Science and Technology. London: DTI.
54. Renn, O. (1995) Style of using scientific expertise: a comparative analysis, Science & Public Policy 22 (3), 147-56.
55. Royal Society (1998) Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use. London: Royal Society.
56. RSPB (1997) Comments by the RSPB [on MAFF, 1997]. Sandy, Beds: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
57. Science Museum (1994) UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology: Final Report, London, Science Museum.
58. SCIMAC (1998) SCIMAC welcomes government backing for managed approach to gm crop introduction, news release, 21 October.
59. Vogel, D. (1986) National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
60. Weale, A. (1992) The New Politics of Pollution, Manchester University Press.
61. Wield, D. and Carr, S. (1997) End of Award Report, From Precautionary to Risk-Based Regulation: the Case of GMO Releases, Economic and Social Research Council, project nu mber L211 25 2032.
62. Young, Baroness (1999) GM is a problem for science, not politics, Independent on Sunday, 14 February [chairman of English Nature, part of the JNCC].