Providing "thoughtful feedback": Public participation in the regulation of Australia's first genetically modified food crop

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 213-225

  Ross, Kerry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CROP; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC ENGINEERING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA;

EID: 34548216799     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234207X211500     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Agronico 2002. Gene Flow from Herbicide Resistance GM Canola to Weedy Relatives (Brassica rapa) in Tasmania. Leith, Tasmania: Agronico Pty Ltd.
2. Anderson, I and B Jaeger 1999. Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), October, 331-340.
3. Arnstein, S 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.
4. Australian Consumers Association 2003. ACA's response to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator on the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for the commercial release of Bayer genetically modified canola, 26 May. Available at , last accessed 15 January 2004.
5. Australian Museum 1999. First Australian consensus conference: gene technology in the food chain - Lay Panel Report, Canberra, Old Parliament House, 10-12 March.
6. Chin, G 2000. The role of public participation in the genetically modified organisms debate. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 17(6), December, 519-535.
7. Commonwealth of Australia 2000. Explanatory guide to the Commonwealth Gene Technology Bill 2000. Available at , last accessed 15 May 2004.
8. Commonwealth of Australia 2000-2001. Genetically Modified Governance Issues, Research Paper No 17, Department of the Parliamentary Library.
9. Commonwealth of Australia 2003. Senate Estimates. Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Canberra, 5 November.
10. Eisendel, E, E Jelsoe and T Breack 2001. Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98.
11. GeneEthics 2003. Submission to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator for the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for DIR021, GeneEthics Network, May. Available at , last accessed 13 January 2004.
12. Gene Technology Act 2000. Available at , last accessed 15 June 2005.
13. Greenpeace (2003) Submission to the Office of Gene Technology Regulator: Response to the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for DIR021/2002, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, 26 May. Available at , last accessed 20 May 2004.
14. Hain, M, C Cocklin and D Gibbs 2002. Regulating biosciences: the Gene Technology Act 2000. Environment and Planning Law Journal, 19(1), February, 163-179.
15. Huxham M and D Sumner 2000. Science and Environmental Decision Making. London: Prentice Hall.
16. IOGTR 1999. Discussion Paper: Proposed national regulatory system for genetically modified organisms - How should it work? Available at , last accessed 13 June 2004.
17. Irwin, A 1995. Citizen Science: a Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
18. Levidow, L 1998. Democratizing technology - or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe, Technology in Society, 20, 211-226.
19. Levidow, L, S Carr, R von Schomberg and D Wield 1996. Bounding the risk assessment of a herbicide-tolerant crop, In Coping with Deliberate Release: the Limits of Risk Assessment, ed. A van Dommelen. The Netherlands: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
20. Lowrance, W 1976. Of Acceptable Risk, California: William Kaufmann Inc.
21. Maddison, S, R Denniss and C Hamilton 2004. Silencing Dissent: Non-Government Organizations and Australian Democracy, Discussion Paper 65, Australia Institute. Available at , last accessed 8 May 2005.
22. Mayer, S 2003. Science out of step with the public: the need for accountability of science in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), June, 177-181.
23. Nelkin, D and M Pollak 1979. Public participation in technical decisions, Technology Review, 81, 55-64.
24. Network of Concerned Farmers, 2003. InVigor® Canola Submission OGTR, , 16 May, Available at , last accessed 15 January 2004.
25. NSW Legislative Council 2001. Genetically Modified Food, Interim Report (Issues Paper). Standing Committee on State Development, Report No. 24. Available at , last accessed 9 September 2006.
26. OGTR Public Participation in the Assessment of Gene Technology, Fact Sheet. Available at , last accessed 9 April 2005.
27. OGTR 2001a. New Gene Technology Regulator Takes up Position, Media Release, 6 December. Available at , last accessed 10 May 2004.
28. OGTR 2001b. Regulation Impact Statement for the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. Available at , last accessed 10 May 2004.
29. OGTR 2002a. Risk Analysis Framework for Licence Applications to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (RAF), January. Available at , last accessed 10 May 2004.
30. OGTR 2002b. The Biology and Ecology of Canola (Brassica napus). Available at , last accessed 9 April 2005.
31. OGTR 2003a. Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP): Commercial Release of Genetically Modified (In-Vigor® Hybrid) Canola, DIR021/2002. Available at , last accessed 10 May 2004.
32. OGTR 2003b. Rigorous Assessment Confirms GM InVigor® Canola Safe as Non_GM Canola, 25 July. Available at , last accessed 10 May 2004.
33. Powell, D and W Leiss 1997. Mad Cows and Mothers Milk: the Perils of Poor Risk Communication, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
34. Public Health Association of Australia 2003. Submission to the OGTR on the Commercial Release of InVigor® Canola (DIR 021/2002), The Institute of Health and Environmental Research Inc. Available at , last accessed 9 April 2004.
35. Rehmann-Sutter, C and A Vatter 1996. Risk communication and the ethics of democracy. In Coping with Deliberate Release: the Limits of Risk Assessment, ed. A van Dommelen. The Netherlands: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
36. Rieger, M A 2002. Consolidated Final Report. Potential Gene Flow from Genetically Modified Brassica napus to Weedy Relatives in Tasmania and Roadside Monitoring/Sampling. Department of Applied and Molecular Ecology, CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide University.
37. Risely, M. 2003. The Politics of Precaution: an Eco-Political Investigation of Agricultural Gene Technology Policy in Australia, 1992-2000. University of Adelaide: Dissertation.
38. Robins, R 2001. Overburdening risk: policy frameworks and the public uptake of biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 19-36.
39. Rowe, G and L Frewer 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), Spring, 251-290.
40. Schibeci, R, J Harwood and H Dietrich 2006. Community involvement in biotechnology policy?: the Australian experience, Science Communication, 27(3), 429-445.
41. Sclove, R 1995. Democracy and Technology, New York: Guilford Press.
42. Slovic, P 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield, Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701.
43. Tranter, M 2003. A question of confidence: an appraisal of the operation of the Gene Technology Act 2000, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 20, 245-259.
44. Warwick, H and G Meziani 2002. Seeds of Doubt: North American Farmers' Experience of GM Crops. Soil Association, UK.
45. Wynne, B 2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445-481.