Transgenic fish: Is a new policy framework necessary for a new technology?

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 17-27

  Logar, Nathaniel ^a   Pollock, Leslie K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Genetically modified organism; Policy framework; Public participation; Transgenic fish

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT; ARTICLE; CANADA; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FISH; FOOD INTAKE; GOVERNMENT; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 10944251688     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aquabounty company website, 2002. www.aquabounty.com . Accessed on 29 August 2004
2. Aubert J. 2000. NGOs on GMOs: The reason for resistance. OECD Observer 220
3. J.L. Berry K.E. Portnoy K. Thompson The Rebirth of Urban Democracy 1993 The Brookings Institution Washington, DC
4. Center for Food Safety (CFS). Campaign on Genetically Engineered Fish. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall3.cfm . Accessed on 31 August 2004
5. Coordinated Framework on the Regulation of Biotechnology, 1986. Federal Register 51, 23303
6. Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy (CEQ/OSTP), 2001. CEQ/OSTP Assessment: Case Studies of Environmental Regulation for Biotechnology. http://www.ostp.gov/html/012201.html
7. J.L. Creighton Public participation in federal agencies' decision making in the 1990s Natl. Civic Rev. 88 1990 249-258
8. P. DeLeon Advice and Consent 1988 Russell Sage Foundation New York, NY
9. J. Dryzek Discursive Democracy 1990 Cambridge University Press New York, NY
10. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 2004). 21 U.S.C. Section 301-397
11. G.L. Fletcher S.V. Goddard M.A. Shears A. Sutterlin C.L. Hew Transgenic salmon: Potentials and hurdles. In: J.P. Toutant E. Balazs (Eds.). Molecular Farming, Proceedings of the OECD Workshop La Grande Motte (France), 3-6 September 2000 2001 INRA editions Paris, France 57-65
12. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 1999. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 1998
13. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2001. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000
14. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002
15. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2004. The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004
16. Food and Drug Administration Environmental Impact Considerations. 21 CFR Section 5
17. Food and Drug Administration/Center for Veterinary Medicine Phone List, http://www.fda.gov/cvm/contactcvm/cvmlist.html , Rev. October 2003
18. L. Frewer Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods Trends Food Sci. Technol. 14 2003 319-332
19. Friends of the Earth (FOE). http://www.foe.org/camps/reg/nw/salmon/index.html . Accessed on 31 August 2004
20. A.J. Green Public participation and environmental policy outcomes Can. Public Policy 23 1997 435-458
21. Greenpeace web site, http://www.greenpeace.org/campaigns/intro?campaign%5fid=3997 . Accessed on 31 August 2004
22. Goldburg R. 2002. Testimony of Rebecca Goldburg, PhD, Environmental Defense, Concerning Marine Aquaculture, Before the US Commission on Ocean Policy. Environmental Defense. Boston, MA
23. E.M. Hallerman A.R. Kapuscinski Transgenic fish and public policy: regulatory concerns Fisheries 15 1990 12-20
24. E.M. Hallerman A.R. Kapuscinski Ecological and regulatory uncertainties associated with transgenic fish. In: C.L. Hew G.L. Fletcher (Eds.). Transgenic Fish 1992 World Science Publishing Company Singapore
25. E.M. Hallerman A.R. Kapuscinski Ecological implications of using transgenic fishes in aquaculture International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Marine Science Symposia vol. 194 1992 56-66
26. International Food Information Council (IFIC) Food Biotechnology Survey Questionnaire (24 September 2002): US Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Biotechnology 2002 IFIC Washington, DC
27. A.R. Kapuscinski E.M. Hallerman Transgenic fish and public policy: anticipating environmental impacts of transgenic fish Fisheries 15 1990 2-11
28. A.R. Kapuscinski Controversies in designing useful ecological assessments of genetically engineered organisms. In: D. Letourneau B. Burrows (Eds.). Genetically Engineered Organisms: Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects 2002 CRC Press Boca Raton, FL
29. J. Kay Chefs shun fish with altered DNA: Some fear fast-growing salmon could affect natural population San Francisco Chronicle 2002 19 September 2002
30. D.M. Konisky T.C. Beierle Innovations in public participation and environmental decision making: Examples from the great lakes region Soc. Nat. Res. 14 2001 815-826
31. E.A. Lind T.R. Tyler The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice 1988 Plenum Press New York
32. J. Marinoff There is enough time: Rethinking the process of policy development Social Justice 24 1997 234-246
33. Matheson J.C. 2004. Personal Communication with John C. Matheson, Senior Regulatory Review Scientist, U.S. FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, in January 2004
34. The Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies, 2003. Memorandum to The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 15 September 2003
35. W.M. Muir R.D. Howard Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: Sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96 1999 13853-13856
36. National Research Council (NRC) Animal Biotechnology: Identifying Science-Based Concerns 2002 National Research Council Washington, DC
37. National Science Board (NSB) Science and Engineering Indicators - 2002 2002 National Science Foundation Arlington, VA (NSB-02-01)
38. R.L. Naylor R.J. Goldburg J.H. Primavera N. Kautsky M.C.M. Beveridge J. Clay C. Folke J. Lubchenco H. Mooney M. Troell Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies Nature 405 2000 1017-1023
39. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. Section 4321-4370e
40. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and The Gene Media Forum (Pew), 2001. The Gene is Out of the Bottle: Where to Next? Survey results. pewagbiotech.org/events/0523/0523pollfindings.pdf . Accessed on 28 August 2004
41. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (Pew) Future Fish: Issues in Science and Regulation of Transgenic Fish 2003 The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Washington, DC
42. S.H. Priest US public opinion divided over biotechnology? Nat. Biotechnol. 18 2000 939-942
43. T. Reichhardt News feature: Will souped up salmon sink or swim? Nature 406 2000 10-12
44. Reuters, 2002. E.U. Agrees on New Import Rules for Genetically Altered Foods. The New YorkTimes, 9 December 2002
45. P.D. Smith M.H. McDonough Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resources decision making Soc. Nat. Res. 14 2000 239-249
46. D. Stone Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making 1997 W.W. Norton New York, NY
47. Trade Secrets Act, 2004. 18 U.S.C. Section 1905
48. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2001. National Agricultural Statistical Service. Acreage Report
49. United States Department of Commerce (USDOC), 2002. Aquaculture Policy. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade/DOCAQpolicy.htm . Accessed on 30 August 2004
50. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2001. Update on Genetically Engineered Fish. www.ucsusa.org/food/upd-gefish.html . Accessed on 12 February 2004
51. U. Wagle The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen participation Policy Sci. 33 2000 207-223