An analysis of efforts to improve genetically modified food regulation in Canada

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 377-389

  Andrée, Peter ^a  

^a TRENT UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOOD POLICY; FOOD SAFETY; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; NATIONAL TRADE; REGULATORY APPROACH;

CANADA; EURASIA; EUROPE; EUROPEAN UNION; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33747037161     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154306781778885     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Abergel, E 2000. Growing uncertainty: the environmental risk assessment of genetically engineered herbicide tolerant canola in Canada. PhD Dissertation, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto.
2. Abergel, Elisabeth and Katherine Barrett 2002. Putting the cart before the horse: a review of biotechnology policy in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 37(3), 135-161.
3. Andrée, Peter 2002. The biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 37(3), 162-191.
4. Andrée, Peter 2005. The genetic engineering revolution in agriculture and food: strategies of the 'Biotech Bloc'. In The Business of Global Environmental Governance, eds. David Levy and Peter Newell. Boston MA: MIT Press.
5. Andrée, Peter and Lucy Sharratt 2004. Genetically modified organisms and precaution: is the Canadian Government implementing the Royal Society of Canada's recommendations? A Report on the Canadian Government's Response to the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel Report entitled Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada. Ottawa: Polaris Institute.
6. Barrett, Katherine and Carolyn Raffensperger 2002. From principle to action: applying the precautionary principle to agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Biotechnology, 4(1).
7. Brunk, Conrad and Brian Ellis 2001. Letter to Ian Green, Deputy Minister of Health Canada, 5 February.
8. CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity 2000. Draft Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. United Nations Environment Program UNEP/ExCOP/1/L.5. 28 January.
9. CBS, Canadian Biotechnology Strategy 2004. IIX Health Canada. Ottawa: CBS. Available at , last accessed 19 May 2004.
10. CCPC, Canadian Corn Pest Coalition 2001. Bt corn coalition report. Guelph: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
11. CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency 1999. Insect resistance management of Bt corn in Canada. Ottawa: Plant Biosafety Office. Available at , last accessed 17 May 2004.
12. CFIA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2000. Regulatory Directive Dir9408: assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits. Ottawa: Plant Biosafety Office.
13. CFIA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2003. Letter to Monsanto Canada Inc. signed by Phil MacDonald and Monica Ficker. Plant Biosafety Office, 11 September (on file with author).
14. CFIA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2004. Peer review: what is it and how does it work? Ottawa: CFIA. Available at , last accessed 1 May 2004.
15. Chasek, Pamela ed. 1999. Report of the sixth session of the Open-Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety and the First Extraordinary Session of the CBD Conference of the Parties: 14-23 February 1999. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(117).
16. Chasek, Pamela ed. 2000. Report of the resumed session of the extraordinary meeting of the conference of the parties for the adoption of the protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: 24-28 January 2000. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9(137).
17. Clark, E Ann 2000. Comments to the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 9 May. Available at , last accessed 2 December 2001.
18. DFO, Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2002. Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies to the petition filed November 21, 2001 by Greenpeace Canada under the Auditor General Act concerning the Federal Government's position and policy regarding the release of genetically engineered fish. 9 April.
19. Dawkins, Kristen 2000. Who should pay for the costs of the Starlink scandal? Minneapolis MI: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
20. Dunlop, Claire 2000. GMOs and regulatory styles. Environmental Politics, 9(2), 149-155.
21. European Commission 2003. European Commission regrets the request for a WTO panel on GMOs. Brussels: European Commission.
22. European Parliament 1997. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. Official Journal of the European Communities, L (043):0001-0006.
23. European Parliament 2001. Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Official Journal of the European Communities, L (106): 0001-0038.
24. European Parliament/CEU, Council of the European Union 2003a. Regulation EC No. 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on the regulation of genetically modified food and feed. Official Journal of the European Communities, L (268):0001-0023.
25. European Parliament/CEU, Council of the European Union. 2003b. Regulation of EC No. 1830/2003 of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Comumunities, L (268):0024-0028.
26. Government of Canada 2001. Action Plan of the Government of Canada in response to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Available at , last accessed 14 February 14 2002.
27. Government of Canada 2002. Pest Control Products Act. C28. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Available at , last accessed 18 December 2005.
28. Government of Canada 2003a. Progress Report: June. Action Plan of the Government of Canada in response to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report. Available at , last accessed 14 May 2004.
29. Government of Canada 2003b. Progress Report: December. Action Plan of the Government of Canada in response to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report. Available at , last accessed 14 May 2004.
30. Government of Canada 2004. Progress Report: August. Action Plan of the Government of Canada in response to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report. Available at , last accessed 1 September 2004.
31. Government of Canada 2005a. Progress Report: February. Action Plan of the Government of Canada in response to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report. Available at , last accessed 15 December 2005.
32. Government of Canada 2005b. Progress Report: June. Action Plan of the Government of Canada in response to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report. Available at , last accessed 15 December 2005.
33. Government of Canada 2005c. Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies to Environmental Petition 152 filed by Greenpeace Canada under the Auditor General Act. 18 November.
34. Green, Ian C 2001. Letter to William Leiss, President, The Royal Society of Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada. (on file with author).
35. Greenpeace 2005. Background briefing: MON863. Brussels, Belgium. Available at , last accessed 18 December 2005.
36. Gupta, A 1999. Framing 'biosafety' in an international context: the Biosafety Protocol negotiations. Boston: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
37. Health Canada 1999. Health Canada rejects bovine growth hormone in Canada. Press release 1999-03, 14 January. Ottawa: Health Canada.
38. Health Canada 2001. Government of Canada welcomes Royal Society expert scientific panel report on the future of food biotechnology. Press release, 5 February. Ottawa: Health Canada.
39. Health Canada 2003. Draft guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods derived from plants and microorganisms. Available at , last accessed 8 May 2004.
40. Health Canada 2004a. Novel food decisions. Available at , last accessed 20 May 2004.
41. Health Canada 2004b. Health protection legislative renewal. Available at , last accessed 2 September 2004.
42. Jasanoff, S 1995. Product, process or programme: three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In Resistance to New Technology, ed. M Bauer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Kleiss, Melanie E 2003. NEPA and scientific uncertainty: using the precautionary principle to bridge the gap. In Jurisdynamics of Environmental Protection ed. Jim Chen, pp. 117-142. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute.
44. Leiss, William 2001. In the Chamber of Risks. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
45. Levidow, Les 1999. Blocking biotechnology as pollution: political cultures in the UK risk controversy. Paper presented at Alternate Futures and Popular Protest conference, MMU, 29-31 March. Milton Keynes UK: Centre for Technology Strategy, Open University.
46. MacDonald, Phil 2005. Telephone interview with author, 13 July. Plant Biosafety Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
47. NAS, National Academy of Sciences 2000. Strengthening science at the US Environmental Protection Agency: research-management and the peer review process. Washington DC: NAS.
48. OAG, Office of the Auditor General 2004. Canadian Food Inspection Agency: regulation of plants with novel traits. In Report of the Auditor General of Canada, ch. 4. Ottawa: OAG.
49. O'Brien, Mary 2000. Making Better Environmental Decisions. Boston MA: MIT Press.
50. O'Riordan, Tim and Anthony Jordan 1999. The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental policy and politics. In Protecting the Public Health and the Environment Implementing the Precautionary Principle, eds. Raffensperger and Tickner, pp. 15-35. Washington DC: Island Press.
51. PCO, Privy Council Office 2003. Framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk. 25 July. Available at , last accessed 4 January 2006.
52. Raffensperger, Carolyn and Joel Tickner 1999. Protecting the Public Health and the Environment Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington DC: Island Press.
53. RSC, Royal Society of Canada (Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology) 2001. Elements of precaution: Recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada.
54. Royal Society 1998. Genetically modified plants for food use. Report 2/ 98. London: Royal Society. September. Available at , last accessed 16 December 2005.
55. Royal Society 2002. Genetically modified plants for food use and human health - an update. Report 4/02. Available at , last accessed 16 December 2005.
56. Royal Society 2005. GM reports and statements. London: Royal Society. Available at , last accessed 15 December 2005.
57. SAB, Scientific Advisory Board to Health Canada 2000. Report of the Science Advisory Board Committee on the drug review process. Available at , last accessed 2 September 2004.
58. Tryphonas, H 2002. Difficulties encountered in assessing the potential allergenicity of GM products - the need for a postmarket surveillance mechanism. Paper presented at the International Conference on Post-Market Surveillance of GM-foods: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities, Ottawa, 16-17 October.
59. Tryphonas, H, G Arvanitakis, E Vavasour and G Bondy 2003. Animal models to detect allergenicity to foods and genetically modified products: workshop summary. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(2), 221.
60. USFDA, United States Food and Drug Administration 1995. FDA's policy for foods developed by biotechnology. Available at , last accessed 15 December 2005.
61. USFDA, United States Food and Drug Administration 2000. Enforcement report 00-44. 1 November. Available at , last accessed 1 October 2004.
62. USFDA, United States Food and Drug Administration 2005. List of completed consultations on bioengineered foods. Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Additive Safety. November. Available at , last accessed 15 December 2005.
63. USTR, United States Trade Representative 2003. United States requests dispute panel in WTO challenge to EU biotech moratorium. Washington DC: USTR.
64. von Shomberg, R 1998. An appraisal of the working in practice of directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. Scientific and Technical Office of Assessment (STOA) of the European Parliament. 2 January.
65. Wiener, Jonathan B and Michael D Rogers 2002. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe, Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), 317-349.