The public option

EMBO Reports

Volumn 10, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1288-1293

  Kuzma, Jennifer ^a   Meghani, Zahra ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOENGINEERING; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; DNA SEQUENCE; ETHICS; EUROPEAN UNION; FOOD; POLICY; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SHORT SURVEY; SOCIAL ASPECT; TRANSGENIC ORGANISM; UNITED STATES; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FOOD INDUSTRY; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LEGAL ASPECT; NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC OPINION;

ANIMALS; FOOD INDUSTRY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; HEALTH POLICY; NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, UNITED STATES; ORGANISMS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 73849105909     PISSN: 1469221X     EISSN: 14693178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/embor.2009.250     Document Type: Short Survey

References (36)

1. CFS (2009) Re: Proposed Rule, APHIS Docket 2008-10023 June 29. Washington, DC, USA: the center for Food Safety
2. De Melo-Martín I, Meghani Z (2009) The US Food and Drug administration's evaluation of the safety of animal clones: a failure to recognize the normativity of risk assessment projects. Bull Sci Technol Soc 29: 9-17
3. EOP (1993, 2002, 2007) Executive order 12866, as amended by EO 13258 of February 26, 2002 and EO 13422 of January 18, 2007. regulatory planning and review. Fed Regist 58: 51735-51744
4. EOP (2009) Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Fed Regist 74: 5977
5. EPA (2008) Step 2\-Dose-Response Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/risk/ dose-response.htm
6. EUu (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Brussels, Belgium: European Uunion
7. FDA (2009) FDA's Response to Public Comment on the Animal Cloning Risk Assessment, Risk Management Plan, and Guidance for Industry. July 11. Bethesda, MD, USA: US Food and Drug agency
8. Ferrara J (1998) Revolving doors: Monsanto and the regulators. Ecologist 28: 280-287
9. Gibbons M (1999) Science's new social contract with society. Nature 402: c81-c84
10. Hamlett P, Cobb MD, Guston DH (2008) National Citizens' Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and human enhancement. CNS-ASU Report R08-0003. tempe, AZ, USA: center for Nanotechnology in Society, arizona State university
11. Harding S (1996) rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is 'strong objectivity?' in Keller EF, Longino H (ed), Feminism and Science, pp 235-248. Oxford, UK: Oxford university press
12. Harding S (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Epistemologies. indianapolis, IN, USA: indiana university press
13. Harris (2004) genetically modified foods and crops: public still divided on benefits and risks. The Harris Poll Jul 2
14. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. princeton, NJ, USA: princeton university press
15. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4: 87-90
16. Kerwin CM (2003) Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy. Washington, DC, USA: cQ
17. Kuzma J, Besley J (2008) Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio-to nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2: 149-162
18. Mattera P (2004) USDA INC.: How Agribusiness has Hijacked Regulatory Policy at the US Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC, USA: agribusiness accountability initiative and corporate research project of good Jobs First
19. Mchugen A, Smyth S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organisms (gmo), rDNa or transgenic] crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol J 6: 2-12
20. Morgan G, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. cambridge, UK: cambridge university press
21. Nrc (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC, USA: National academies press.
22. Nrc (1996) Understanding Risk. Washington, DC, USA: National academies press
23. Nrc (2000) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. Washington, DC, USA: National academies press
24. OMB (2009) Federal regulatory review. Fed Regist 74: 8819
25. OSTP (1986) Coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Fed Regist 51: 23302
26. Paarlberg RL (2000) Governing the gM crop revolution: policy choices for developing countries. in Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 33. Washington, DC, USA: international Food policy research institute
27. PiFB (2005) US vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food. philadelphia, PA, USA: pew initiative on Food and Biotechnology
28. PiFB (2006) Agricultural Biotechnology Information Disclosure: Accommodating Conflicting Interests Within Public Access Norms. philadelphia, PA, USA: pew initiative on Food and Biotechnology
29. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci Technol Human Values 29: 512-557
30. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeoples' and experts' perceptions of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27: 59-69
31. Stilgoe J, Wilsdon J (2007) Rules of engagement: democracy and dialogue in creating nanotechnology futures. in Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds), Nano-ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology, pp241-250. New york, NY, USA: Wiley interscience
32. Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Rep 10: S18-S22
33. Thompson P (2007) Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer
34. USDA (2007) Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, July 2007. Washington, DC, USA: US Department of agriculture
35. USDA (2008) Importation, interstate movement, and release into the environment of certain genetically engineered organisms: proposed rule. Fed Regist 73: 60008-60048
36. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through Science. London, UK: Demos