Consideration of problem formulation and option assessment for Bt cotton in Brazil

Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms Series

Volumn 2, Issue , 2006, Pages 67-92

  Capalbo, D M F ^a   Simon, M F ^a   Nodari, R O ^b   Valle, S ^c   dos Santos, R F ^d   Coradin, L ^e   Duarte, J De O ^f   Miranda, J E ^d   Diads, E P F ^g   Quyen, Le Quang ^h   Underwood, Evelyn ⁱ   Nelson, K C ^j  

^a EMBRAPA CERRADOS   (Brazil)

^b National Centre of Research for Conservation of Natural Predators   (Brazil)

^c INSTITUTO OSWALDO CRUZ   (Brazil)

^d EMBRAPA ALGODÃO   (Brazil)

^e IBAMA   (Brazil)

^f EMBRAPA MILHO E SORGO   (Brazil)

^g MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE   (Brazil)

^h Vietnam Institute for Cotton Research and Development   (Viet Nam)

ⁱ SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Switzerland)

^j UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890239228     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Altieri, M.A. (2000) The ecological impacts of transgenic crops on agroecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 6, 13-23.
2. Biggs, S. and Matsaert, H. (1999) An actor-oriented approach for strengthening research and development capabilities in natural resource systems. Public Administration and Development 19, 231-262.
3. Bonalume Neto, R. (2003) GM confusion in Brazil. Nature Biotechnology 21, 1257-1258.
4. Brody, J. (2002) In a world of hazards, worries are often misplaced. New York Times, August 20.
5. Burachik, M. and Traynor, P.L. (2002) Analysis of a National Biosafety System: Regulatory Procedures in Argentina. ISNAR Country Report 63, International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands.
6. CBD (Convention on Biodiversity) (1992) Convention on Biodiversity: convention text. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf (accessed February 2005).
7. CBD (Convention on Biodiversity) (2000) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: convention text. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/protocol.asp (accessed October 2003).
8. CBD (Convention on Biodiversity) (2004) Decision VII/11. Available at: http://www.biodiv.org (accessed February 2005).
9. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2000) Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1 final. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/20001en.htm, CEC, Brussels, Belgium (accessed October 2004).
10. Contini, E., Sampaio, M.J.A.M. and Ávila, F. (2003) The lack of clear GMO regulation and its costs for the Brazilian economy. International Journal of Biotechnology 5. Available at: http://www.environmental-expert.com/magazine/inderscience/ijbt/ (accessed October 2004).
11. Crowfoot, J.E. and Wondolleck, J.M. (1990) Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Island Press, Washington, DC.
12. Department of Agriculture Western Australia (2004) GMO Trial Details. Available at: http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/biotechnology/gmtrials.htm (accessed November 2004).
13. FAO (2004) The state of food and agriculture 2004. Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor? FAO Agriculture Series, No. 35. Rome, Italy.
14. Fontes, E.M.G. (2003) Legal and regulatory concerns of transgenic plants in Brazil. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 83, 100-103.
15. Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
16. Gibbons, M. (1999) Science's new social contract with society. Nature 402, C81-C84.
17. Glover, D., Keeley, J., McGee, R., Newell, P., Da Costa, P., Ortega, A.R., Loureiro, M. and Lin, L.L. (2003) Public Participation in National Biosafety Frameworks: A Report for UNEP-GEF and DFID. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
18. Goldstein, I. (1993) Training in Organizations, 3rd edn. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, California.
19. Grimble, R. and Wellard, K. (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55(2), 173-193.
20. Hallerman, E.M. and Kapuscinski, A.R. (1995) Incorporating risk assessment and risk management into public policies on genetically modified finfish and shellfish. Aquaculture 137, 9-17.
21. Hemmati, M. (2002) Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond the Deadlock and Conflict. Earthscan, London.
22. Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10, 1-18.
23. Kapuscinski, A.R., Goodman, R.M., Hann, S.D., Jacobs, L.R., Pullins, E.E., Johnson, C.S., Kinsey, J.D., Krall, R.L., La Viña, A.G.M., Mellon, M.G. and Ruttan, V.W. (2003) Making safety first a reality for biotechnology products. Nature Biotechnology 21(6), 599-601.
24. Kessler, J. and Van Dorp, M. (1998) Structural adjustment and the environment: the need for an analytical methodology. Ecological Economics 27, 267-281.
25. Loevinsohn, M., Berdegué, J. and Guijt, I. (2002) Deepening the basis of rural resource management: learning processes and decision support. Agricultural Systems 73, 3-22.
26. McLean, M.A., Frederick, R.J., Traynor, P.L., Cohen, J.I. and Komen, J. (2002) A conceptual framework for implementing biosafety: linking policy, capacity and regulation. International Service for National Agricultural Research Briefing Paper 47, ISNAR, New York.
27. Miller, H.I. (1994) A need to reinvent biotechnology regulation at the EPA. Science 266, 1815-1818.
28. Munson, A. (1993) Genetically manipulated organisms: international policy-making and implications. International Affairs 69, 497-517.
29. NRC (National Research Council) (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
30. NRC (National Research Council) (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
31. NRC (National Research Council) (2002) Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
32. Nelson, K.C., Kibata, G., Lutta, M., Okuro, J.O., Muyekho, F., Odindo, M., Ely, A. and Waquil, J. (2004) Chapter 3: Problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA) for genetically modified organisms: the Kenya case study. In: Hilbeck, A. and Andow, D.A. (eds) Risk Assessment of Transgenic Crops: A Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 57-82.
33. Nutti, M., Sampaio, M.J.A.M. and Watanabe, E. (2004) GMO research and agribusiness in Brazil: impact of the regulatory framework. In: Taylor, Iain E.P. and Barrett, K. (eds) Genetically Engineered Plants: Decision-Making under Uncertainty. Haworth's Food Products Press, Binghamton, New York.
34. O'Brien, M. (2000) Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massaschusetts.
35. Pelaez, V., Albergoni, L. and Guerra, M.P. (2004) Soja transgênica vs. soja convencional: uma análise comparativa de custos e benefícios. Cadernos de Ciência e Tecnologia 21(2), 279-309.
36. Sagar, A., Daemmrich, A. and Ashiya, M. (2000) The tragedy of the commoners: biotechnology and its publics. Nature Biotechnology 18(January), 2-4.
37. Schmoldt, D. and Peterson, D. (1998) Analytical group decision-making in natural resources: methodology and application. Forest Science 46(1), 62-75.
38. Skorupinski, B. (2001) Debating novel food: a comparison of public participation processes on genetically modified food in four European countries. In: Third Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, Florence, 3-5.10.2001, pp. 381-384.
39. Skorupinski, B. (2004) Debating risks and hazards-about deliberation and deliberate release. In: Breckling, B. and Verhoeven, R. (eds) Risk Hazard Damage: Specification of Criteria to Assess Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms, Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Vol. 1. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany, pp. 171-182.
40. Stern, P. and Fineberg, H. (eds) (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Committee on Risk Characterization. Commission on Behavioural and Social Sciences and Educations. National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
41. Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J. (eds) (1999) The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
42. Susskind, L., Levy, P.F. and Thomas-Larmer, J. (2000) Negotiating Environmental Agreements: How to Avoid Escalating Confrontation, Needless Costs, and Unnecessary Litigation. Island Press, Washington, DC.
43. Traynor, P.L., Fredrick, R.J. and Koch, M. (2002) Biosafety and Risk Assessment in Agricultural Biotechnology. A Workbook for Technical Training. The Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project. Institute of International Agriculture, Michigan State University, Michigan.
44. UNEP-GEF (2003a) Report of the subregional workshops for Asian countries on: Risk assessment and management and public awareness and participation. UNEP-GEF Project on Development of National Biosafety Frameworks, Asian Countries Subregional Workshop (January 21-24 2003, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia). UNEPGEF Biosafety Unit, Geneva, Switzerland.
45. UNEP-GEF (2003b) Sub-regional workshop for Latin American countries on: Development of a regulatory regime and administrative systems. UNEP-GEF Project on Development of National Biosafety Frameworks, Latin American Sub-Regional Workshop on Development of a Regulatory Regime and Administrative Systems (November 25-28 2003, Santiago, Chile). UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit, Geneva, Switzerland.
46. Wondolleck, J.M. and Yaffee, S.L. (2000) Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.