Public Engagement with Emerging Issues in Agri-Food Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology in the Agri-Food Sector: Implications for the Future

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 257-270

  Frewer, Lynn J ^a,b   Fischer, Arnout R H ^b   Rowe, Gene ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Emerging technology; Food technology; Public engagement; Risk benefit perception; Societal debate; Stakeholder

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883102377     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9783527634798.ch15     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Macoubrie, J. (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst. Sci. 15(2), 221-241.
2. Burri, R.V., and Bellucci, S. (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 10(3), 387-391.
3. Pidgeon, N., and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or " upstream engagement"? Health Risk Soc., 9 (2), 191-210.
4. Powell, M.C., and Colin, M. (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology-what would it really take? Sci. Commun. 30(1), 126-136.
5. Fischer, A.R.H., and Frewer, L.J. (2007) Public acceptance of new technologies in food products and production, in Risk and the Public Acceptability of New Technologies (eds R. Flynn and P. Bellaby), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 66-85.
6. Houghton, J.R., Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., Van Kleef, E., Chryssochoidis, G., Kehagia, O., Korzen-Bohr, S., Lassen, J., Pfenning, U., and Strada, A. (2008) The quality of food risk management in Europe: perspectives and priorities. J. Food Policy 33, 13-26.
7. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., and Stares, S. (2003) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0, Methodology Institute, London School of Economics, London, UK.
8. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G., and O'Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate:. Risk, Politics and Public Engagement, Routledge, London.
9. Sandler, R., and Kay, W.D. (2006) The National Nanotechnology Initiative and the social good. J. Law Med. Ethics 34(4), 675-681.
10. Hilgartner, S. (1990) The dominant view of popularisation: conceptual problems, political issues. Soc. Stud. Sci. 20, 519-539.
11. Irwin, A. (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the " new " scientific governance. Soc. Stud. Sci. 36(2), 299-320.
12. Laird, F.N. (1989) The decline of deference: the political context of risk communication. Risk Anal. 9(4), 545-550.
13. Flynn, R., and Bellaby, P. (eds) (2007) Risk and the Public Acceptability of New Technologies, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.
14. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., and Shepherd, R. (1998) Understanding public attitudes to technology. J. Risk Res. 1, 221-237.
15. Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., and Bredahl, L. (2003) Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: effects of different information strategies. Risk Anal. 23(6), 1117-1133.
16. Levidow, L., and Marris, C. (2001) Science and governance in Europe: lessons from the case of agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Public Policy 28(5), 345-360.
17. Fischhoff, B. (1995) Risk perception and communication: twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 15, 137-145.
18. Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.J. (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Human Values 30(2), 251-290.
19. Fishkin, J.S. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
20. Wynne, B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet., 9 (3), 211-220.
21. Walls, J., Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.J. (2010) Stakeholder engagement in food risk management: evaluation of an iterated workshop approach. Public Underst. Sci., in press. doi: 10.1177/0963662509354543
22. Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.J. (2004) Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci. Technol. Human Values 29(4), 512-556.
23. Rogers-Hayden, T., and Pidgeon, N. (2007) Moving engagement " upstream " ? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry. Public Underst. Sci. 16(3), 345-364.
24. Wentholt, M., Rowe, G., Konig, A., Marvin, H., and Frewer, L. (2009) The views of key stakeholders on an evolving food risk governance framework: results from a Delphi study. Food Policy 34(6), 539-548.
25. Webler, T. (1995) " Right " discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick, in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (eds O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann), Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 35-86.
26. Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.J. (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Human Values 25(1), 3-29.
27. Delli Carpini, M.X., Cook, F.L., and Jacobs, L.R. (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. A nnu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7, 315-344.
28. Mendelberg, T. (2002) The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence, in Research in Micropolitics: Political Decision-Making, Deliberation and Participation (eds M.X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, and R. Shapiro), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 151-193.
29. Ryfe, D.M. (2005) Does deliberative democracy work? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 8, 49-71.
30. Sunstein, C.R. (2002) The law of group polarization. J. Polit. Philos. 10(2), 175-195.
31. Rowe, G. (2007) Public engagement in food policy, in Understanding Consumers of Food Products (eds L.J. Frewer and J.C.M. van Trijp), Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 592-609.
32. Fischer, A.R.H., and Frewer, L.J. (2008) Stakeholder and Societal Consultation about Emerging Issues in the Chemical Sector. A Review for the Suschem Technology Platform, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
33. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B.H., Bryant, K., and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4(2), 95-98.
34. Burri, R.V. (2009) Coping with uncertainty: assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Underst. Sci. 18(5), 498-511.
35. Evers, J., and D'Silva, J. (2009) Knowledge transfer from citizens'panels to regulatory bodies in the domain of nano-enabled medical applications. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 22(1), 125-142.
36. Powell, M., and Kleinman, D.L. (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic credentials of the consensus conference model. Public Underst. Sci. 17(3), 329-348.
37. Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., Yao, Q.J., and Toumey, C. (2008) Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology: what, if anything, do they say? Sci. Commun. 30(2), 209-235.
38. Hamlett, P.W., and Cobb, M.D. (2006) Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Stud. J. 34(4), 629-648.
39. Rogers-Hayden, T., and Pidgeon, N. (2008) Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: " upstream " towards sustainability? J. Clean. Prod., 16 (8-9), 1010-1013.