Agricultural biotechnology in central and eastern Europe: Determinants of cultivation bans

Sociologia Ruralis

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 362-381

  Tosun, Jale ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CROP PRODUCTION; CULTIVATION; EUROPEAN UNION; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; REGULATORY APPROACH;

CENTRAL EUROPE; EASTERN EUROPE;

EID: 84904039863     PISSN: 00380199     EISSN: 14679523     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/soru.12046     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Aistara, G.A. (2009) Maps from space: Latvian organic farmers negotiate their place in the European Union. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (2) pp. 132-150
2. Andonova, L.B. (2004) Transnational politics of the environment. The European Union and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
3. Auers, D. (2012) The curious case of the Latvian Greens. Environmental Politics 21 (3) pp. 522-527
4. Bale, T. and A. Szczerbiak (2008) Why is there no Christian democracy in Poland - and why should we care? Party Politics 14 (4) pp. 479-500
5. Batory, A. and N. Sitter (2004) Cleavages, competition and coalition-building: Agrarian parties and the European question in Western and East Central Europe. European Journal of Political Research 43 (4) pp. 523-546
6. BeCkmann, V., C. Soregaroli and J. Wesseler (2006) Coexistence rules and regulations in the European Union. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (5) pp. 1193-1199
7. Bell, S., A. Montarzino, P. Aspinall etal. (2009) Rural society, social inclusion and landscape change in Central and Eastern Europe: a case study of Latvia. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (3) pp. 295-326
8. Biel, A. and A. Nilsson (2005) Religious values and environmental concern: harmony and detachment. Social Science Quarterly 86 (1) pp. 178-191
9. Börzel, T.A., T. Hofmann and D. Panke (2012) Caving in or sitting it out? Longitudinal patterns of non-compliance in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 19 (4) pp. 454-471
10. Brossard, D. and M.C. Nisbet (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19 (1) pp. 24-52
11. Budge, I. (1994) A new spatial theory of party competition: uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24 (4) pp. 443-467
12. Cirtautas, A.M. and F. Schimmelfennig (2010) Europeanisation before and after accession: conditionality, legacies and compliance. Europe-Asia Studies 62 (3) pp. 421-441
13. Dawson, J.I. (1996) Eco-nationalism: anti-nuclear activism and national identity in Russia, Lithuania, and Ukraine (Durham, NC: Duke University Press)
14. Demont, M., M. Cerovska, W. Daems etal. (2008) Ex Ante impact assessment under imperfect information: biotechnology in new member states of the EU. Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (3) pp. 463-486
15. Dimitrova, A.L. (2010) The new member states of the EU in the aftermath of enlargement: do new European rules remain empty shells? Journal of European Public Policy 17 (1) pp. 137-148
16. EurActiv (19 February 2014) Paris wants national permits for GM maize. Available online at http://www.euractiv.com/sustainability/paris-wants-national-permits-gm-news-533597 Accessed 21 February 2014
17. Ferretti, P.M. (2007) Why public participation in risk regulation? The case of authorizing GMO products in the European Union. Science As Culture 16 (4) pp. 377-395
18. Fonte, M. (2008) Knowledge, food and place. A way of producing, a way of knowing. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (3) pp. 200-222
19. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (12 February 2014) Neue Genmaissorte in Europa vor der Zulassung. Available online at http://www.seiten.faz-archiv.de/faz/20140212/fd2201402124192710.html Accessed 21 February 2014
20. Galbreath, D.J. and D. Auers (2009) Green, black and brown: uncovering Latvia's environmental politics. Journal of Baltic Studies 40 (3) pp. 333-348
21. Ganghof, S. and T. Bräuninger (2006) Government status and legislative behaviour partisan veto players in Australia, Denmark, Finland and Germany. Party Politics 12 (4) pp. 521-539
22. Harper, K. (2003) Green carnivores, mad cows and gene tech: The politics of food in Hungarian environmentalism. Anthropology of Eastern Europe Review 21 (1) pp. 103-108
23. Hristova, V. (2013) Between politics and science: Accommodating national diversity in GMO regulation. Pp. 107-127 in M.B. van Asselt, E. Versluis and E. Vos eds., Balancing between trade and risk: integrating legal and social science perspectives (Abington: Routledge)
24. Jahn, D. and F. Müller-Rommel (2010) Political institutions and policy performance: a comparative analysis of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Public Policy 30 (1) pp. 23-44
25. Knill, C. and J. Tosun (2009) Post-accession transposition of EU law in the new member states: A cross-country comparison. European Integration Online Papers Special Issue 2 (13) Available online at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2009-018a.htm Accessed 22 March 2014
26. Konefal, J. and L. Busch (2010) Markets of multitudes: how biotechnologies are standardising and differentiating corn and soybeans. Sociologia Ruralis 50 (4) pp. 409-427
27. Kovách, I. (2000) LEADER, a new social order, and the Central and East European Countries. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (2) pp. 181-189
28. Krom, M.P., J. Dessein and N. Erbout (2014) Understanding relations between science, politics, and the public: the case of a GM field trial controversy in Belgium. Sociologia Ruralis 54 (2) pp. 21-39
29. Lassen, J. and P. Sandøe (2009) GM plants, farmers and the public - a harmonious relation? Sociologia Ruralis 49 (3) pp. 258-272
30. Lee, C.K. and D. Strang (2006) The international diffusion of public-sector downsizing: network emulation and theory-driven learning. International Organization 60 (4) pp. 883-910
31. Legge, J.S. and R.F. Durant (2010) Public opinion, risk assessment, and biotechnology: lessons from attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research 27 (1) pp. 59-76
32. Levidow, L. and K. Boschert (2008) Coexistence or contradiction? GM crops versus alternative agricultures in Europe. GeoForum 39 (1) pp. 174-190
33. Levidow, L. and K. Boschert (2011) Segregating GM crops: why a contentious 'risk' issue in Europe? Science As Culture 20 (2) pp. 255-279
34. Levidow, L., S. Carr and D. Wield (2000) Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities. Journal of Risk Research 3 (3) pp. 189-208
35. Levidow, L., S. Carr and D. Wield (2005) European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Science and Public Policy 32 (4) pp. 261-276
36. Lieberman, S. and T. Gray (2006) The so-called 'moratorium' on the licensing of new genetically modified (GM) products by the European Union 1998-2004: a study in ambiguity. Environmental Politics 15 (4) pp. 592-609
37. Linde, Z. (2010) Discursive aspects of GMO risk policy in Latvia (Kronvalda: University of Latvia, Centre for Bioethics and Biosafety, Faculty of Biology)
38. Mair, P. and C. Mudde (1998) The party family and its study. Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1) pp. 211-229
39. Mazzeschi, M. (2006) Recent developments in Italian environmental law. The International Environmental News. Available online at http://apps.americanbar.org/intlaw/committees/business_regulation/environment/mazzeschi_jan06_italy.pdf Accessed 21 February 2014
40. Melece, L., A. Praulinš and D. Popluga (2009) Organic farming in Latvia: development and economics. Žemes Ūkio Mokslai 16 (3/4) pp. 145-153
41. Ministry of the Environment of Latvia (2008) Vides Ministrijas 2008. gada publiskais pārskats. Available online at http://www.varam.gov.lv/lat/publ/pub_parsk/ministr_parsk/?doc=9591 Accessed 26 January 2014
42. Ministry of the Environment of Latvia (2014) GMO free territories in Latvia. Available online at http://www.varam.gov.lv/eng/darbibas_veidi/gmo/ Accessed 26 January 2014
43. Murphy, J. and L. Levidow (2006) Governing the transatlantic conflict over agricultural biotechnology: contending coalitions, trade liberalisation and standard setting (London: Routledge)
44. Navah, M., E. Versluis and M.B. van Asselt (2013) The politics of risk decision making the voting behaviour of the EU member. Pp. 128-146 in M.B. van Asselt, E. Versluis and E. Vos eds, Balancing between trade and risk: integrating legal and social science perspectives (Abington: Routledge)
45. Novinite (31 January 2010) Bulgarians Rise in Protest against Genetically Modified Crops. Available online at http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=112589 Accessed 26 May 2013
46. Novinite (1 February 2011) Bulgaria Bans MON 810 GMO Maize. Available online at http://www.thebulgariannews.com/view_news.php?id=124797 Accessed 26 May 2013
47. Paarlberg, R. (2010) Food politics: what everyone needs to know (New York: Oxford University Press)
48. Pechlaner, G. and G. Otero (2008) The third food regime: neoliberal globalism and agricultural biotechnology in North America. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (4) pp. 351-371
49. Pelc, I. (2009) The role of GMOs in the new member states - a critical appraisal. Available online at http://www.greens-efa.eu/de/the-role-of-gmos-in-the-new-member-states-3054.html Accessed 26 May 2013
50. Politics (13 December 2013) European Court bans GMO potato after challenge from Hungary. Available online at http://www.politics.hu/20131213/european-court-bans-gmo-potato-after-challenge-from-hungary/. Accessed 28 January 2014
51. Pollack, M.A. and G.C. Shaffer (2009) When cooperation fails. The international law and politics of genetically modified foods (New York: Oxford University Press)
52. Pollack, M.A. and G.C. Shaffer (2010) Biotechnology policy: between national fears and global disciplines. Pp. 331-356 in H. Wallace, M.A. Pollack and A.R. Young eds, Policy-making in the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
53. Roberts, A. and B.Y. Kim (2011) Policy responsiveness in post-communist Europe: public preferences and economic reforms. British Journal of Political Science 41 (4) pp. 819-839
54. Royston, P. and P.C. Lambert (2011) Flexible parametric survival analysis using stata: beyond the Cox Model (College Station, TX: Stata Press)
55. Sabalza, M., B. Miralpeix, R.M. Twyman etal. (2011) EU legitimizes GM crop exclusion zones. Nature Biotechnology 29 (4) pp. 315-317
56. Schimmelfennig, F. and U. Sedelmeier (2005) Introduction: conceptualizing the Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe. Pp. 1-28 in F. Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier eds, The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe (Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press)
57. Schwartz, K. (2007) The occupation of beauty: imagining nature and nation in Latvia. East European Politics and Societies 21 (2) pp. 259-293
58. Seifert, F. (2006) Synchronised national publics as functional equivalent of an integrated European public. The case of biotechnology. European Integration Online Papers 10 (8). Available online at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view/2006_008a/26 Accessed 26 May 2013
59. Seifert, F. (2009) Consensual NIMBYs, contentious NIABYs: explaining contrasting forms of farmers GMO opposition in Austria and France. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (1) pp. 20-40
60. Skevas, T., E.M. Kikulwe, H. Papadopoulou etal. (2013) Do European Union farmers reject genetically modified maize? Farmer preferences for genetically modified maize in Greece. AgBioForum 15 (3) pp. 242-256
61. Skogstad, G. (2003) Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness?: network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 10 (3) pp. 321-338
62. Skogstad, G. (2011) Contested accountability claims and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 49 (4) pp. 895-915
63. Swinnen, J.F. and T. Vandemoortele (2010) Policy gridlock or future change? The political economy dynamics of EU biotechnology regulation. AgBioForum 13 (4) pp. 291-296
64. Tiberghien, Y. (2009) Competitive governance and the quest for legitimacy in the EU: the battle over the regulation of GMOs since the mid-1990s. Journal of European Integration 31 (3) pp. 389-407
65. Torgersen, H.-F. and F. Seifert (2000) Austria: precautionary blockage of agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Risk Research 3 (3) pp. 209-217
66. Toshkov, D. (2008) Embracing European law compliance with EU directives in Central and Eastern Europe. European Union Politics 9 (3) pp. 379-402
67. Tosun, J. (2013a) How the EU handles uncertain risks: understanding the role of the precautionary principle. Journal of European Public Policy 20 (10) pp. 1517-1528
68. Tosun, J. (2013b) Risk regulation in Europe: Assessing the application of the precautionary principle (New York: Springer)
69. Twardowski, T. and A. Małyska (2012) Social and legal determinants for the marketing of GM products in Poland. New Biotechnology 29 (3) pp. 249-254
70. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2005) EU - 25: Biotechnology Environment Council votes to lifting biotech bans 2005. Available online at http://apps.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200506/146130137.pdf Accessed 26 January 2014
71. Varone, F. and N. Schiffino (2007) Conflict and consensus in Belgian biopoliocies: GMO controversys versus biomedical self-regulation. Pp. 193-213 in E. Montpetit, C. Rothmayr and F. Varone eds, The politics of biotechnology in North America and Europe: policy networks, institutions and internationalization (Lanham: Lexington Books)
72. Von Beyme, K. (1985) Political parties in Western democracies (Aldershot: Gower)
73. Weber, K., H. Rao and L.G. Thomas (2009) From streets to suites: how the anti-biotech movement affected German pharmaceutical firms. American Sociological Review 74 (1) pp. 106-127
74. Winkler, D. (2013) Two paths of risk regulation: the concurrence of scientific and sociocultural decision-making in the European law of agricultural genetic engineering. Journal of Risk Research 16 (7) pp. 803-823