The role of culture in risk regulations: A comparative case study of genetically modified corn in the United States of America and European Union

Environmental Science and Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 327-342

  Guehlstorf, Nicholas P ^a   Hallstrom, Lars K ^b  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY EDWARDSVILLE   (United States)

^b ST FRANCIS XAVIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Environmental policy; Food biotechnology; Genetically modified; Political culture; Risk management

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSENSUS; CORN; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; EUROPE; FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HERBICIDE TOLERANCE; INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE; LAW; ORGANIZATION; POLICY; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; UNITED STATES;

BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS; INSECTA; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 22144491124     PISSN: 14629011     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.04.007     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Agencies, U.B.R., 2004. US Database of Completed Regulatory Agency Reviews, from http://www.usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/
2. S.S. Andersen K.A. Eliassen (Eds.) The European Union: How Democratic Is It? 1996 Sage London
3. Backstrand, K., 2002. Precaution, Scientisation or Deliberation? Green Environmental Decision Making. Paper presented at the ECPR, Joint Sessions Workshop 10.
4. B. Barber Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World 1996 Ballantine Books New York
5. Barboza, D., 2001. As biotech crops multiply, consumers get little choice. New York Times, June 10.
6. Bernauer, T., Meins, E., 2001. Scientific Revolution Meets Policy and the Market: Explaining Cross-National Differences in Agricultural Policy. GMA 2000, Adelaide.
7. BNA, 1996a. Chemicals, pharmaceuticals company cites further progress on environmental goals. International Environmental Reporter 19 (11), May 29, Bureau of National Affairs.
8. BNA, 1996b. Commission postpones decision on genetically modified maize seed. International Environmental Reporter 19 (16), August 7, Bureau of National Affairs.
9. BNA, 1996c. Green groups, industry continue to battle over trade in genetically modified organisms. International Environmental Reporter 19 (19), September 19, Bureau of National Affairs.
10. BNA, 1996d. Regulatory body rejects approval of genetically modified maize seed. International Environmental Reporter 19 (9), May 1, Bureau of National Affairs.
11. BNA, 1997a. Austria, Luxembourg to ban use, import of genetically modified maize seed. International Environmental Reporter 20 (4), February 19, Bureau of National Affairs.
12. BNA, 1997b. Commission approve use of genetically engineered corn seed. International Environmental Reporter 20 (1), January 8, Bureau of National Affairs.
13. BNA, 1997c. Commission to require labeling of food with genetically modified soybeans, maize. International Environmental Reporter 20 (20), October 1, Bureau of National Affairs.
14. BNA, 1998. Parliament stalls EU attempts to force Austria, Luxembourg to repeal ban on GMO. International Environmental Reporter 21 (20), September 30, Bureau of National Affairs.
15. J. Bowen R. Petersen Critical Comparisons in Politics and Culture 1999 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
16. Buonanno, L., Zabloneny, S., Keefer, R., 2001. Politics versus science in the making of a new regulatory regime for food in Europe. European Integration Online Papers 5(12).
17. L.K. Caldwell Between Two Worlds: Science, the Environmental Movement, and Policy Choice 1990 Cambridge University Press New York
18. Commission of the European Communities, 2001. Commission Improves Rules on Labelling and Tracing of GMOs in Europe to Enable Freedom of Choice and Ensure Environmental Safety. Brussels.
19. G. Comstock Vexing Nature: On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston
20. C.F. Cranor Some moral issues in risk assessment Ethics 101 1 1990 123-143
21. B. De Marchi J.R. Ravetz Risk management and governance: A post-normal science approach Sci. Direct 31 7 1999 743-757
22. A.C. Deibert Agricultural biotechnology: Public perception of risk in: S.M. Gendel A.D. Kline D.M. Warren F. Yates (Eds.) Agricultural Bioethics: Implications of Agricultural Biotechnology 1990 Iowa State University Press Ames
23. J.-M. Douguet O.C. Martin Maintaining the integrity of the French terroir: A study of critical natural capital in its cultural context Ecol. Econ. 44 2-3 2003 233-254
24. K. Dowding Power 1996 Open University Press Buckingham
25. M. Dowie Losing Ground 1995 The MIT Press Cambridge
26. M. Echols Food safety regulation in the European Union and the United States: Different cultures, different laws Columbia J. Eur. Law 4 Summer 1998 525-543
27. ERS, 2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Adoption of Biotechnology and its Production Impacts, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/ chapter1.htm
28. Europa, 2001. Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms. Web page: http://www.europa.eu.int/scadplus/ printversion/enlvb121158.htm/
29. L.E. Ewens Seed wars: Biotechnology, intellectual property, and the quest for high yield seeds Boston Coll. Int. Comp. Law Rev. 23 Spring 2000 285-310
30. W.P. Falcon Sustainable science for a sustainable environment: Comments on searching for sustainability Ecol. Law Q. 27 1 2001 1163-1174
31. FDA, 1998. Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology: Education/ Compliance Program 1995, 2000, from http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov (August 12).
32. Florida, U., 2004. Biotechnology in the United States, from http://agbiotech.ifas.ufl.edu/usa.html
33. J.R. Franks The status and prospectus for genetically modified crops in Europe Food Policy 24 5 1999 565-584
34. Gaivoronskaid, G., Solem, K.E., 2000. The Debate on the Risk of Genetically Modified Food. The Politics of Science, vol. 5.
35. G. Gaskell M. Bauer (Eds.) Biotechnology 1996-2000 2001 Science Museum London
36. G. Gaskell E. Einsiedel S. Priest T.T. Eyck N. Allum H. Torgersen Troubled waters: The Atlantic divide on biotechnology policy In: G. Gaskell M. Bauer (Eds.) Biotechnology 1996-2000: The Years of Controversy 2001 Science Museum London
37. P.J. Goss Guiding the hand that feeds: Toward socially optimal appropriability in agricultural biotechnology innovation California Law Rev. 84 October 1996 1395-1436
38. Gottlieb Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement 1993 Island Press Washington, DC
39. N. Guehlstorf Political Theories of Risk Analysis 2004 Springer Dordrecht
40. K. Harper Green carnivores, mad cows, and gene tech: The politics of food in Hungarian environmentalism Anthropol. East Eur. Rev. 21 1 2003 (e-archive)
41. M.W. Harvey Humans and the environment in America's past OAH Mag. History 10 3 1996 5-11
42. Hervey, T.K., 2002. Queen's Papers on Europeanization 3/2002. Europeanization of the Regulation of GM Products: Science or the Citizen? University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
43. N. Hettinger Patenting life: Biotechnology, intellectual property, and environmental ethics Boston Coll. Environ. Affairs Law Rev. 22 Winter 1995 267-305
44. N. Holtzman Proceed with Caution: Predicting Genetic Risk in the Recombinant DNA Era 1989 John Hopkins University Press Baltimore
45. C. Hood H. Rothstein R. Baldwin The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes 2001 Oxford University Press Oxford
46. R. Hunter European regulation of genetically modified organisms In: J. Morris R. Bate Fearing (Eds.) Food: Risk, Health, and Environment 1999 Butterworth Heinemann Oxford
47. S. Krimsky Symposium: The profit of scientific discovery and its normative implications Chicago-Kent Coll. Law Rev. 75 15 1999 1-20
48. Liebert, U., 2001. Constructing Monetary Union: Euro-Skepticism and the Emerging European Public Space. Working Papers, Jena Monet-Centre for European Studies.
49. R.D. Lipschutz Global Civil Society and Global Environmental Governance: The Politics of Nature From Place to Planet 1996 SUNY Press New York
50. McGlouglin, M., 1999. We'll Starve Without Biotech: Genetic Engineering is Subject to More Safeguards than Many Unaltered Foods We Eat 2001, from www.biotechknowledge.com/ (November 11).
51. Meins, E., 2001. Explaining the Stringency of Consumer Protection: The Case of Labeling of Genetically Modified Food. ECPR Workshop, The Politics of Food.
52. C. Merchant Major Problems in American Environmental History 1993 DC Health Lexington, MA
53. C. Mukeji M. Schudson Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies 1991 University of California Berkeley
54. P.S. Naik Biotechnology through the eyes of an opponent: The resistance of activist Jeremy Rifkin Virginia J. Law Technol. 5 Spring 2000 n1-n138
55. NRC Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation 2002 National Research Council Washington, DC
56. PABE, 2001. Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Brussles.
57. Petite, M., 1998. The Treaty of Amsterdam. Working Papers, The Jean Monnet-Centre for European Studies.
58. R. Pistorius J.V. Wifk The Exploitation of Plant Genetic Information: Political Strategies in Crop Development 1999 CAB International Cambridge
59. E. Plutzer A. Maney R.E. O'Connor Ideology and elites' perceptions of the safety of new technologies Am. J. Polit. Sci. 42 1 1998 190-209
60. D. Powell W. Leiss (Eds.) Mad Cows and Mother's Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication 1997 McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal
61. Quayle, D., 1991. Report on National Biotechnology Policy. The President's Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC.
62. Ray, L., 1999. When Parties Matter: The Conditional Influence of Party Positions on Voter Opinions about European Integration. Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association.
63. Rippel, B., 1998. Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: Differences Between the U.S. and Europe. Web page: http://www.foodstuff.org/News/ OnthePlate/bio-tech.htm/
64. M. Rosso-Grossman A.B. Endres Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union Am. Behav. Sci. 44 3 2000 378-343
65. Schweiger, T., 2000-2001. Eu Enlargement and Genetically Modified Organisisms: Chasing a Moving Target - The Implications of EU Accession for Eastern European Agriculture and Food Policy: ANPED - The Northern Alliance for Sustainability.
66. K. Sergerson D. Bromley The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty 1985 Kluwer Academic Boston
67. R.B. Shapiro The Welcome Tension of Technology: The Need for Dialogue about Agricultural Biotechnology 2000 Center for the Study of American Business, Washington University St. Louis
68. K. Shrader-Frechette Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic Methodology: Some Problems of Technology Assessment and Environmental Impact Analysis 1985 D. Reidel Boston
69. Somers, M.R., 1995. "What's Political or Culture About Political Culture and the Public Sphere? Toward an Historical Sociology of Conception Formation." Sociol. Theory 13 (2), 113-114.
70. C.N. Stone Regime Politics 1989 Kansas University Press Lawrence
71. P. Strydom Risk, Environment, and Society 2002 Open University Press Philadelphia
72. L.P. Thiele Limiting risks: Environmental ethics as a policy primer Policy Stud. J. 28 3 2000 540-564
73. J. Treweek Ecology and environmental impact assessment J. Appl. Ecol. 33 2 1996 191-199
74. Vogel, D., 2001. The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics. Web page: http://www.cfr.org/public/pubs/Victor_ModFood_Paper2.html/
75. W. Wallace J. Smith Democracy or technocracy? European integration and the problem of popular consent In: J. Hayward (Ed.) The Crisis of Representation in Europe 1995 Frank Cass London
76. L. Wedeen Conceptualizing culture: Possibilities for political science Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 96 4 2002 713-728
77. Winter, G. (2001). Food industry agrees to tighter standard on food labeling. New York Times, May 31.