How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis?

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-5

  Johnson, Katy L ^a   Raybould, Alan F ^b   Hudson, Malcolm D ^a   Poppy, Guy M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b JEALOTT S HILL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN; PERSONNEL; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENT; HUMANS; PLANTS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33846247921     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2006.11.004     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. European Commission (2000) First Report on the Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures. Part Two: Appendices. Directorate C - Scientific Opinions (European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, ed.), p. 261, The European Commission
2. Cohen J.I., and Paalberg R. Unlocking crop biotechnology in developing countries - a report from the field. World Dev. 32 (2004) 1563-1577
3. Bennett R., et al. Reductions in insecticide use from adoption of Bt cotton in South Africa: impacts on economic performance and toxic load to the environment. J. Agric. Sci. 143 (2004) 665-674
4. Huang J., et al. Insect-resistant GM rice in farmers fields: assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science 308 (2005) 688-690
5. Dixon B. Genes in food - why the furore?. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 31 (2003) 299-306
6. Rose S. How to (or not to) communicate science. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 32 (2003) 307-312
7. Peterson G., et al. The risks and benefits of genetically modified crops: a multidisciplinary perspective. Conservation Ecol. 4 1 (2000) 13. http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art13/
8. Wallis J., et al. The meta-governance of risk and new technologies: GM crops and mobile telephones. J. Risk Res. 8 (2005) 635-661
9. Lockie S.L., et al. Factors underlying support or opposition to biotechnology among Australian food consumers and implications for retailer-led food regulation. Food Policy 30 (2005) 399-418
10. Kinsey J. Information technology in the retail food industry. Technol. Soc. 22 (2000) 83-96
11. Levidow L., and Carr S. UK: strategies for precautionary commercialization of GM crops. OCL-Ol. Corps Gras Li. 7 (2000) 361-365
12. Annerberg R. The present status of genetically modified crops in the EU - the current situation and a vision for the future. Acta Agr. Scand. B-S. P. Suppl. 1 (2003) 14-18
13. Walls J., et al. Seeking citizens' views on GM crops: experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Environment 47 (2005) 22-36
14. Suter G.W. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environ. Manage. 14 (1990) 19-23
15. Suter G.W. Ecological endpoints. In: Warren-Hicks W., et al. (Ed). Ecological Assessments of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference Document (1989), US Environmental Protection Agency 18-46
16. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Framework for ecological risk assessment. In EPA/630/R-92/001, USEPA
17. Poppy G.M., and Wilkinson M.J. Risk assessment of GM crops - does the road ahead need to be long and winding?. In: Poppy G.M., and Wilkinson M.J. (Eds). Gene Flow from GM Plants (2005), Blackwell Publishing 225-238
18. Raybould A.F., and Wilkinson M.J. Assessing the environmental risks of gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives. In: Poppy G.M., and Wilkinson M.J. (Eds). Gene Flow from GM Plants (2005), Blackwell Publishing 169-185
19. Poppy, G.M. (2003) The use of ecological endpoints and other tools from ecological risk assessment to create a more conceptual framework for assessing the environmental risk of GM plants. In BCPC International Congress: Crop Science and Technology (vol. 2), pp. 1159-1166, British Crop Protection Council
20. Hill R.A. Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environmental Biosafety Research 4 (2005) 67-70
21. Poppy G.M. Geneflow from GM plants - towards a more quantitative risk assessment. Trends Biotechnol. 22 (2004) 436-438
22. Raybould A.F. A decade of gene flow reseach: improved risk assessments or missed opportunities?. Aspects Appl. Biol. 74 Suppl. GM Crops- Ecological Dimensions (2004) 27-33
23. Raybould A.F., and Cooper J.I. Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the examples of virus resistant Brassica napus. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4 (2005) 127-140
24. Watrud L.S., et al. Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101 (2004) 14533-14538
25. Warren J.M., et al. Genetic structure in the perennial grasses Lolium perenne and Agrostis curtisii. Heredity 81 (1998) 556-562
26. Losey, J.E. et al. (1999) Negative impacts of transgenic pollen on monarch butterflies. Nature 399
27. Sears M.K., et al. Impact of Bt corn pollen in monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98 (2001) 11937-11942
28. Gathmann A., et al. Impact of Bt maize pollen (MON810) on lepidopteran larvae living on accompanying weeds. Mol. Ecol. 15 (2006) 2677-2685
29. Nap J., et al. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part 1: Overview of current status and regulations. Plant J. 33 (2003) 1-18
30. Schilter B., and Constable A. Regulatory control of genetically modified (GM) foods: likely developments. Toxicol. Lett. 127 (2002) 341-349
31. Sjoberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal. 21 (2001) 189-198
32. Eden S. Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertainty and the environment. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 22 (1998) 425-432
33. Mayer S., and Stirling A. Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments -lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 1 (2002) 57-71
34. Lonnroth M. The use of GM crops in comparison with previously loaded issues in the relationship between man and nature. Acta Agr. Scand. B-S. P. Suppl. 1 (2003) 68-72
35. Poortinga W. The use of multi-level modelling in risk research: a secondary analysis of a study of public perception of genetically modified food. J. Risk Res. 8 (2005) 583-597
36. Krayer von Krauss M., et al. Elicitation of expert judgements of uncertainty in the assessment of herbicide-tolerant oilseed crops. Risk Anal. 24 (2004) 1515-1527