Seeking citizens' views on gm crops: Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand

Environment

Volumn 47, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 22-37

  Walls, John ^a   Rogers Hayden, Tee ^a   Mohr, Alison ^a   O'Riordan, Timothy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; AUSTRALIA; BIOTECHNOLOGY; COST; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; FOOD SAFETY; GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP; NEW ZEALAND; NONHUMAN; POLICY; POLITICS; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 23744488948     PISSN: 00139157     EISSN: 19399154     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/ENVT.47.7.22-37     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. L. Levidow, "Regulating Bt Maize in the United States and Europe: A Scientific-Cultural Comparison," Environment, December 1999, 10-23
2. G. Conway, "Food for All in the 21st Century," Environment, January/February 2000, 8-18
3. R. Paarlberg, "Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: Promise or Peril?" Environment, January/ February 2000, 19-29.
4. A. Jordan, "The Precautionary Principle in the European Union," in T. O'Riordan, J. Cameron, and A. Jordan, eds., Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle (London: Cameron May, 2001), 131-48.
5. S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 229.
6. A. Irwin "The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the 'New' Scientific Governance," Social Studies of Science, forthcoming 2006.
7. GM Science Review Panel, GM Science Review: First Report (London: Department of Trade & Industry, 2003), http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/pdf/ gmsci-report1-full.pdf.
8. E. Millstone and P. van Zwanenberg, "BSE: A Paradigm of Policy Failure," Political Quarterly 74, no. 1 (2003): 27-37.
9. W. Poortinga and N. Pidgeon, "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis 23, no. 5 (2003): 961-72.
10. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: A Follow-Up Discussion Paper (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2003), http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/gm_crops_paper_final001.pdf.
11. R. Paarlberg, "From the Green Revolution to the Gene Revolution," Environment, January/February 2005, 38-40
12. FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004: Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? (Rome: FAO, 2004).
13. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), Crops on Trial (London: Department of Trade & Industry, 2001), 7.
14. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Gene Technology in Australia: Gene Technology: What Are Its Uses? http:// genetech.csiro.au/uses.htm (updated 5 May 2004).
15. J. Grundahl, "The Danish Consensus Conference Model," in S. Joss and J. Durant, eds., Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (London, Science Museum, 1995), 31-40.
16. S. Joss "Danish Consensus Conferences as a Model of Participatory Technology Assessment: An Impact Study of Consensus Conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish Public Debate," Science and Public Policy 25, no. 1 (1998): 2-22
17. L. Klüver, "Consensus Conferences at the Danish Board of Technology," in S. Joss and J. Durant, note 31 above, pages 41-49.
18. I. Mayer, J. de Vries, and J. Geurts, Effects of Participation: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of a Consensus Conference on Human Genetics Research (Tilburg, Netherlands: Work and Organisation Research Centre, Tilburg University, 1996), 225
19. I. Mayer, Debating Technologies: A Methodological Contribution to the Design and Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis (Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press, 1997)
20. S. Joss, "The Role of Participation in Institutionalised Technology Assessment: A Case Study of Consensus Conferences" (PhD thesis, London, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, November 1998), 379
21. Lay Panel, First Australian Consensus Conference: Gene Technology in the Food Chain (Lay Panel Report) (Canberra: Australian Museum, 1999)
22. N. Minchin, Science and Technology Budget Statement 1999-2000 (Canberra: Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 1999)
23. Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (IOGTR), Community Affairs References Committee Inquiry into the Gene Technology Bill 2000, http:// www.ogtr.gov.au/pdf/public/iogtrsenatesub.pdf, 114.
24. A. Mohr, "A New Policy Making Instrument? The First Australian Consensus Conference" (PhD thesis, Faculty of Arts, Griffith University, Australia, 23 September 2002).
25. B. Wynne, "Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs," Science as Culture 19, no. 4 (2001): 445-81.
26. Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM), Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (Wellington: RCGM, 2001).
27. T. Rogers-Hayden and R. Hindmarsh, "Modernity Contextualises New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: A Discourse Analysis," Journal of New Zealand Studies 1, no. 1 (2002): 41-61.
28. R. Grove-White and B. Szerszynski, "Getting Behind Environmental Ethics," Environmental Values 1 (1992): 285-96
29. S. Yearley, "Green Ambivalence About Science: Legal-Rational Authority and the Scientific Legitimation of a Social Movement," British Journal of Sociology 43, no. 2 (1992): 511-32.
30. T. Rogers-Hayden, "Commissioning Genetic Modification: The Marginalisation of Dissent in the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification" (PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of Waikato, 2004)
31. T. Rogers-Hayden and R. Hindmarsh, "Modernity Contextualises New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: A Discourse Analysis," Journal of New Zealand Studies 1, no. 1 (2002): 41-61.
32. M. Hobbs, New Organisms and Other Matters Bill 2003, First Reading, http://www.beehive.govt.nz/PrintDocument.cfm?DocumentID=16661 (accessed 25 July 2003).
33. GE-Free Canterbury, "GE Free Canterbury Disappointed by ERMA Decision" press release (Canterbury, New Zealand, 6 January 2004), accessible via http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/SC0401/ S00001.htm (accessed 31 January 2004).
34. L. Petley, "Dialogue: Non-Violent Direct Action a Tradition of Jaywalkers," New Zealand Herald, 18 January 2002, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/print.cfm?objectid=786633 (accessed 28 June 2005).
35. R. Willis and J. Wilsdon, "Technology, Risk and the Environment," in A Giddens, ed., The Progressive Manifesto (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003).
36. R. Willis and J. Wilsdon, See-Through Science: Why Public Engagment Needs to Move Upstream (London: Demos, 2004).