Innovation and liability in biotechnology: Transnational and comparative perspectives

Innovation and Liability in Biotechnology: Transnational and Comparative Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages

  Smyth, Stuart J ^a   Endres, A Bryan ^b   Redick, Thomas P ^c   Kershen, Drew L ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^c Global Environmental Ethics Counsel   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85081489051     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Book

References (302)

1. Abel, Steve (2004), 0.0088% contamination in non-GM product resulted in prosecution, available online at: www.non-gm-farmers.comlnews_details.asp? ID=1873.
2. ACIL Tasman (2005), Managing Genetically Modified Crops in Australia: GM Crops Segregation and Liability in Australian Agriculture, available online at: http://croplife.intraspin.comlBiotechimanaging-genetically-modified-crops-inaustralia-gm-crops-segregation-and-liability-in-australian-agriculture/
3. Agra Marke, Inc. v. Aventis CropScience USA LP (2005), No. MDL 1403,03C 4385 WL 327020 (N.D. m. 2005).
4. American National Research Council (1983), Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, Washington, DC: National Academy Press
5. Anderson, Kym and Lee Ann Jackson, (2005), Global Responses to GM Food Technology, Australia Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
6. Andean Pact (1996), Common System on Access to Genetic Resources, Decision 391
7. Arkansas. (2006), Arkansas Rice Certification Act, §§ 2-15-201 to 2-15-208.
8. Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law (Editorial) (2004), Special issue on sustainable regulation of biotechnology, Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, 8, 1
9. Assouline, Gerald and Tereza Stockelova (2005), Genetically Modified Organisms: A Danger to Sustainable Agriculture, World Wildlife Fund, S wi tzerland
10. Backus, Ge, Petra Berkhout, Derek Eaton, Ton de Kleijn, Eveline van Mil, Pim Roza, Wilhelm Uffelman, Linus Franke and Bert Lotz, (2008), EU Policy on GMOs: A Quick Scan of the Economic Consequences, The Hague, Netherlands: LEI Wageningen UR
11. Bail, Christoph, Robert Faulkner and Helen Marquard (eds) (2002), The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Reconciling Trade in Biotechnology with Environment and Development?, London, UK: Earthscan
12. Banakas, Efstathios K. (ed.) (1996), Civil Liability for Pure Economic Loss, United Kingdom Comparative Law Series, 16, London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Bennett v. Larsen Co. (1984), vol. 3481984. 348N.W.2d 540 (Wis. 1984).
14. Bergkamp, Lucas (2000), Allocating unknown risk: Liability for environmental damages caused by deliberately released genetically modified organisms, available online: http://papers.ssrn.comlso13/papers.cfm?abstraccid=223068.
15. Bergkamp, Lucas (ed.) (2001), Liability and Environment, London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. BIOTECanada (2004), BIOTECanada Molecular Farming Committee white paper, submitted to Industry Canada on 28 October
17. Biotechnology Industry Organization (2005), Handbookfor Understanding and Implementing the Containment Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan for Production of Plant-made Pharmaceuticals and Plant-made Industrial Proteins, available online at: www.bio.orglfoodag/stewardship120070521.asp.
18. Biotechnology Industry Organization (2007), Product Launch Stewardship Policy, 21 May
19. Bled, Amandine (2009), Privatizing Anticipatory Governance? The Biotechnology Industry's "Global Compact" Initiative for Liability and Redress under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, paper presented at: the annual meeting of the International Studies Association's 50th Annual Convention, New York, NY, available online at: www.allacademic.comlmetal p311650_index.html.
20. Bock, Anne-Katrin, Karine L'heureux, Monique Libeau-Dulos, Hans Nilsa,gard and Emilio Rodriguez-Cerezo (2002), Scenarios for Co-existence of Genetically Modified, Conventional and Organic Crops in European Agriculture, Seville, Spain: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
21. Boelt, Birte (ed.) (2003), GMCC-03: GM Crops and Coexistence, proceedings of the First European Conference on the Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Crops, Slagelse, Denmark: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Flakkebjerg.
22. Borlaug, Norman (2002), Biotechnology and the Green Revolution, Action Bioscience, American Institute of Biological Sciences, available online at: www.actionbioscience. orglbiotech/borlaug.html.
23. Briere, Karen (2003), Grower will keep certification, Western Producer, 8 September
24. Briggle, Adam (2005), Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relations, in Carl Mitchum (ed.), Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics, Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan, 18-23.
25. Brookes, Graham and Peter Barfoot (2004a), Co-Existence of GM and Non-GM Arable Crops: The Non-GM and Organic Context in the EU, PG Economics Ltd., available online at: http://croplife.intraspin.comlBiotech!coexistence-ofgm-and -n on-gm-arable-crops-the-n on -gm-and -organic-context -in -the-eu/
26. Brookes, Graham and Peter Barfoot (2004b), Co-existence in North American Agriculture: Can GM Crops be Grown with Conventional and Organic Crops, PG Economics Ltd., available online at: www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/ CoexistencereportN Ameri cafinalJ une2004. pdf.
27. Brookes, Graham, Neville Craddock and Barbel Kniel (2005), The Global GM Market: Implications for the European Food Chain: An Analysis of Labelling Requirements, Market Dynamics and Cost Implications, available online at: www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/GlobaLGM_Market.pdf.
28. Burnett-Hall, Richard (2003), Liability for Damage Caused by Genetically Modified Organisms: The Existing Law, Annex Din, GM Crops? Coexistence and Liability, UK Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, 125-129
29. Burton, Geoff (2008), Attracting research and business investment, Business.20l0 Newsletter, 3 (1), 1.
30. California (1998) California Assembly Bill, 623
31. California (2006) California Food and Agriculture Code, §§ 55000, 55001
32. Canada (1985), Seeds Act, Ottawa: Queen's Printer, available online at: www.canlii.orglen/callaws/statlrsc-1985-c-s-8/Iatestlrsc-1985-c-s-8.html.
33. Canada (1999), Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), 1999, Ottawa: Queen's Printer, available online: http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partIIIII999/g3-02203.pdf.
34. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (2000), Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies to the Petition filed 9 May, 2000 by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund under the Auditor General Act: Review of Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies on Genetically Modified Organisms, on file with authors
35. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2001), Multi-stakeholder Consultation of Plant Molecular Farming, report of proceedings on file with authors
36. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2003), Technical Workshop on Developing a Regulatory Framework for the Environmental Release of Plants with Novel Traits Intendedfor Plant Molecular Farming, on file with authors
37. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2004), Technical Workshop on the Segregation and Handling of Potential Commercial Plant Molecular Farming Products and By-products, available online at: www.inspection.gc.ca/english/ plaveglbio/mf/fracad/commere.shtml#annex2.
38. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2008), Plant Molecular Farming, available online at: www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/reglpmfamve.shtml.
39. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (no date), Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in Canada: An Overview, available online at: www.inspection. gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/ reglbioage.shtml.
40. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (no date), Agricultural Biotechnology in Canada: Environmental Questions, available online at: www.inspection.gc.ca/ english/sci/biotech/enviro/envrege.shtml.
41. Cardy-Brown, Ltd. (2008), Impact of EU Unauthorised GMs on the Feed and Livestock Sectors, East Sussex, UK: Cardy-Brown Co. Ltd.
42. Carrato, Tom (2009), The "Compact" in the Context of the Cartagena Protocol, presentation at the Canada Grains Council 40th Annual Meeting, 6-7 April, Winnipeg, Manitoba
43. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000), Liability and Redress (Article 27), available online at: www.cbd.intfbiosafety/cop-mop/resultsl?id=10789.
44. Center for Food Safety (2007), Monsanto vs. u.s. Farmers,Report Update, available online at: www.centerforfoodsafety.orgiMonsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm.
45. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001), Investigation of Human Health Effects Associated with Potential Exposure to Genetically Modified Corn, available online at: www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/Cry9cReport/pdfs/cry9c report. pdf.
46. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004), Outbreak of alfatoxin poisoning-eastem and central provinces, Kenya, January-July 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53 (34), 790-793
47. Chen, Jim (2006), There's no such thing as biopiracy... and it's a good thing too, McGeorge Law Review, 37 (1), 1-32.
48. Choudhary, Bhagirath and Kadambini Gaur (2009), The Development and Regulation of BT Brinjal in India, Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications
49. Clarke, Chris (2003), The proposed ED liability directive: Half-way through codecision, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 12 (3), 254--268
50. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2001), Matters Arising from Codex Committees and Task Forces: Traceablility, available online: ftp:l/ftpJao.orgicodexiALINORMOllaI0121ee.pdf.
51. Comite du Commerce des cereales, aliments du betail, oleagineux, huile d'olive, huiles et graisses et agrofournitures (COCERAL) (2008), Concern Over Viability of EU Livestock Sector, Brussels, Belgium
52. Conforto, David (2004), Traditional and modem-day biopiracy: Redefining the biopiracy debate, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 19, 357-396
53. Conklin, Neil (2008), Agriculture's Strategic Role in Feeding and Fueling a Growing World Paper, President Remarks at Agriculture's Strategic Rol.e in Feeding and Fueling a Growing World Conference, 4 December, Washington, DC.
54. Conseil d' accreditation Du Quebec (2003), The Conseil d' accredi tation Du Quebec Launches Organic/GMO Investigation, press release Canadian newswire, 5 September
55. Dalton, David (2003), Liability Issues Associated with GM Crops for Australia, Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, on file with authors
56. Daniell, Henry, Stephen, Streatfield and Keith Wycoff, (2001), Medical molecular farming: Production of antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and edible vaccines in plants, Trends in Plant Sciences, 6 (5),219-226
57. Danish Institute of Agricultural Science (2003), Site Specific Assessment of Crop Quality: Implementation of Precision Farming in Practical Agriculture, 113-118
58. DeGreer, Marcia E. (2003), Can Round-Up ReadyTM seeds ever be corralled?: Restraining genetic drift through criminal sanctions, New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 29, 219-254.
59. Denmark (2003), Strategies for Coexistence - Genetically Modified, Conventional and Organic Crops, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, available online at: www.agrsci.dklgmcc-03/background.htm.
60. Denmark (2004a), Executive Order on Compensation for Losses due to Certain Occurrences of Genetically Modified Material, available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/analysis/external/liability_gmo/annex2.pdf.
61. Denmark (2004b), Act on the Growing etc. of Genetically Modified Crops, Copenhagen, Denmark: Queen's Printer, available online at: www.naturschutzrecht.netiGentechniklGenTGDK.pdf.
62. Deutsch, Erwin (1996), Compensation for Pure Economic Loss in German Law, in E.K. Banakas (ed), Civil Liability for Pure Economic Loss, London, UK: Klewer Academic Publishers.
63. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, et al. (1980), vol. 447 United States, 447 U.S.
64. Dickenson, Donna (2004), Patently paradoxical? "Public order" and genetic patents, Nature Reviews Genetics, 5 (2), 86
65. Dobbs, Dan B. (2000), The Law of Torts, Eagan, MN: West Group.
66. DUall, Elizabeth. (2004), Note: A Liability and Redress Regime for genetically modified organisms under the Cartagena Protocol, George Washington International Law Review, 36, 173-202.
67. Earley, Jane (2006), Certifying sustainable soy, Agricultural Management Committee Newsletter, 10, (3), 9-10, available online at: www.abanet.orgl environ/committees/agricultinewsletter/aug06/agmgmt0806.pdf.
68. Economist (Editorial note) (1999), Food for Thought. Economist, 19 June.
69. Einspanier, Ralf and Majorie A. Faust, (2006), Safety of Meat, Milk and Eggs from Animals Fed Crops Derived from Modern Biotechnology, Council of Agricultural Science and Technology Issue Paper, 34, (July), 1-8.
70. Eisenberg, Melvin A. (2009), Impossibility, impracticality and frustration, Journal of Legal Analysis, 1 (1), 207-261.
71. Elbehri, Aziz (2005), Biopharming and the food system: Examining the potential benefits and risks, AgBioForum, 8 (1), 18-25
72. Endres, A. Bryan (2000), GMO: Genetically modified organism or gigantic monetary obligation, the liability schemes for GMO damage in the United States and European Union, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 22, 453-506.
73. Endres, A. Bryan (2005), Revising seed purity laws to account for the adventitious presence of genetically modified varieties: A first step towards coexistence, Journal of Food Law and Policy, 1, 131-163.
74. Endres, A. Bryan (2006), Coexistence strategies in a biotech world: Exploring statutory grower protections, Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review, 13, (Summer), 206-240.
75. Endres, A. Bryan (2008), Coexistence strategies: The common law of biotechnology and economic liability risks, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 13 (1), 115-148.
76. Endres, A. Bryan and Peter D. Goldstein (2004), Alternative business strategies in weak intellectual property environments: A law and economics analysis of the agro-biotechnology firm's strategic dilemma, The Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 14 (2), 237-268.
77. European Commission (1979), Council Directive 79/409, On the Conservation of Wild Birds
78. European Commission (1990), Council Directive 90/220, On the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms
79. European Commission (1991), Council Regulation 2092/91, On Organic Production of Agricultural Products and Indications Referring thereto on Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs
80. European Commission (1992), Council Directive 92/43, On the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora
81. European Commission (1999), Council Regulation 1804/1999, On Organic Production of Agricultural Products and Indications Referring thereto on Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs to Include Livestock Production
82. European Commission (2001a), Council Directive 2001118, On the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms Repealing Council Directive 901220
83. European Commission (2001b), Opinion of Scientific Committee on Plants Concerning the Adventitious Presence of GM Seeds in Conventional Seed, Brussels, Belgium: EC Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General
84. European Commission (2002), Council Directive 2002/53, Regarding the Common Catalog of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species
85. European Commission (2003a), Council Regulation 1829/2003, Genetically Modified Food and Feed
86. European Commission (2003b), Commission Recommendation 20031:556, Guidelines for the Development of National Strategies and Best Practices to ensure the Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming
87. European Commission (2003c), Council Regulation 1830/2003, Concerning the Traceability and Labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms and the Traceability of Food and Feed Products Produced from Genetically Modfied Organisms and Amending Directive 2001l181EC
88. European Commission (2004), Council Directive 2004/35, Environmental Liability with Regard to the Prevention and Remedying of Environmental Damage
89. European Commission (2005), State aides-Denmark-compensation for losses due to the presence of certain GMO material, EC Secretariat General
90. European Commission (2006), Report on the Implementation of National Measures on the Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming, available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm.
91. European Commission (Patent Office) (2000), European Patent Convention, (EPC, 1973) Article 53(a), available online at: www.epo.orglpatentsllawllegaltextslhtmllepcl1973/elar53.html.
92. European Food Safety Authority (2007), EFSA Statement on the Fate of Recombinant DNA on Proteins in Meat, Milk and Eggs from Animals Fed with GM Feed, available online at: www.efsa.europa.eulcs/BlobServerIStatementi gmo_EFSA_ statemenCDNA_proteins~astroint.pdf.
93. European Union (2007), Traceability and Labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), available online: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ agriculture/food/121170_en.htm.
94. Evans, David (2005), Are Europe's Farmers Warming to GMO Maize?, Reuters, 23 September
95. Fahrner, R.L., H.L. Knudsen, C.D. Basey, W. Galan, D. Feuerhelm, M. Vanderlaan and G.S. Blank (2001), Industrial purification of pharmaceutical antibodies: Development, operation, and validation of chromatography process, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 18, 301-327.
96. Federal Trade Commission (2008), Bureau of Consumer Protection, Part 260-Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, available online at: www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm.
97. Fogleman, Valerie (2004), The environmental liability directive, Environmental Liability, 12 (3), 101-115
98. Francis, Charles, Twyla Hansen and Peter Skelton (eds) (2005), Science-based Organic Farming 2005: Toward Local and Secure Food Systems, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln
99. Fridman, G. (2002), The Law of Torts in Canada, 2nd ed., Toronto, Ontario: Caswell.
100. Friends of the Earth Europe (2004a), Danish co-existence law is full of weaknesses, Biotech Mailout, July
101. Friends of the Earth Europe (2004b), German law on co-existence-improved, Biotech Mailout, July
102. Fuchser v. Jacobsen (1980), vol. 2901980. 290N.W.2d 449 (Neb. 1980).
103. Future Group (2008), Informal High-Level Advisory Group Terms of Reference, available online at: www.statewatch.orginews/2008/juVeu-futures-terms-ofref.pdf.
104. Gaskell, George, Martin W. Bauer, John Durant and Nicholas C. Allum (1999), Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S., Science, 285 (5426), 384-387.
105. Gathmann, Achim and Detlef Bartsch (2005), Public GMO Location Registers for Supporting National Co-existence Measures, in Proceedings of the Se(;ond International Conference on Coexistence Between GM and Non-GM Based Supply Chains, 14-15 November, Montpellier; France
106. Gaynor, Kevin A. and Thomas R. Bartman. (1999), Criminal enforcement of environmental laws, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 10, 39-94.
107. Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns. (2007), No. C06-01075 CRB, 2007 WL 518624 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13,2007).
108. Germany (1990), Federal Environmental liability Act
109. Germany (1993), Gentechnikgesetz (GenTG), BCBl
110. Germany (2004), Gesetz Zur Neuordnung Des Gentechnikrechts
111. Germany (no date), Response to Rehn-Joschka letter, from the Federal Republic of Germany to the EU Commission on Article 1, Number 34, on file with authors
112. Gillis, Justin (2003), US will subsidize cleanup of altered corn, Washington Post, 26 March
113. Glenn, Jane Matthews (2004) Footloose: Civil responsibility for GMO gene wandering in Canada, Washburn Law Journal, 43, 547-573
114. GMO Compass (2008), Danish farmers to grow GM crops, available online at: www.gmo-compass.orglenglnews/383.docu.htrnl.
115. Greenpeace (2004), Germany Decides on New GE Law, on file with authors
116. Gressel, Jonathan (2008), Genetic Glass Ceilings: Transgenics for Crop Biodiversity, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press
117. Grossman, Margaret Rosso (2002), Biotechnology, property rights and the environment, American Journal of Comparative Law, 50, 215-249
118. Grossman, Margaret Rosso and A. Bryan Endres (2000), Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union, American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (3), 378-434.
119. Halsey, Mark (2004), Against "green" criminology, British Journal of Criminology, 44 (6), 833-853
120. Harndon v. Stultz (1904), vol. 1001904. 100N.W. 851 (Iowa 1904).
121. Hart v. Meredith (1990), vol. 5531990. 553N.E.2d 782 (111. App. Ct. 1990).
122. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) (2002), vol. 4, S.c.R. 45.
123. Hawks, Bill (2004), Letter from Bill Hawks, Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, USDA, to Gus Douglass, Commissioner, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 21 December
124. Heald, Paul J. and James C. Smith. (2005), Pollen drift and the bystanding farmer, harmonizing patent law and common law on the technological frontier, Georgia Law Advocate, 40 (1),2-6.
125. Hegenbart, Scott (2001), Low-phytate com raises zinc absorption, available online at: www.foodingredientsonline.comlarticle. mvc/Low -ph ytate-cornraises-zinc-absorption-OOOI ?VNETCOOKIE=NO.
126. Herdegen, Matthias (2005), The co-existence of genetically modified crops with other forms of farming: the regulation by EU member states in light of ED law, Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 2, 89-98
127. Hileman, B. (2002), Drugs from plants stir debate, Chemical Engineering News, 80 (32), 22-25.
128. Hofftnan v. Monsanto Canada Inc. (2005), vol. 4030 Saskatchewan.
129. Holtby, Kareen L. (2005), International Liability and Trade in Genetically Modified Products - Possibility or Improbability, MSc Thesis, College of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Saskatchewan.
130. Howarth, David (2004), Civil liability for GM farming: GM crops and the existing law, Environmental Liability, 12 (5), 185-210
131. Huber, Peter W. (1988), Biotechnology and the regulation HYDRA, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, available online at: www.manhattaninstitute.orgl htrnllcjm _6.htm.
132. Hucko, Mark (2006), GM crops in Germany stalled, available online at: www.agbios.com/static/news/NEWSID 7205. php.
133. Htiper, Reiner-Jorg (2004), Application of Criminal Environmental Law in Germany, in Francoise Comte and Ludwig Kramer (eds), Environmental Crime in Europe, 153-163
134. Indian Express (Editorial) (2004), ICAR to develop transgenic kind of 14 crops, Indian Express, 9 March
135. Informa Economics (2008), Morning comments, 19 September, on file with authors
136. International Center for Technology Assessment v. Johanns (2007), 473F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2007).
137. International Institute for Sustainable Development (2007), Working group highlights, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 9 (403), 26 October, available online at: www.iisd.calvo109/enb09456e.htrnl.
138. InterSect Alliance Inc. (2004), Industry and Government Perspectives on Adventitious Presence of Products of Genetic Engineering in Seeds, Grains, Oilseed and Special Crops, on file with authors.
139. Institute of Science in Society (2005), Europe Holding Firm Against GMOs, available online at: http://www.i-sis.org.uklEHFAG.php.
140. Ireland Department of Agriculture and Food (2005), Co-Existence of GM and Non-GM Crops in Ireland, available online at: www.agriculture.gov.ie/gm_ coexistence/.
141. Isaac, Grant, E. (2002), Agricultural Biotechnology and Transatlantic Trade: Regulatory Barriers to GM Crops, Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
142. Isaac, Grant E. and Jill E. Hobbs. (2002), GM food regulations: Canadian debates, Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 3 (2), 105-113.
143. Isaac, Grant E. and William A. Kerr. (2004), Bioprospecting or biopiracy?: Intellectual property and traditional knowledge in biotechnology innova.tion, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 7 (1) 35-52.
144. Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), vol. 197, U.S. 11.
145. Jaffe, Gregory (2009), Are current rules adequate to regulate genetic engineering? The Policy Journal of the Environmental Law Institute, 26; (2), 39-42
146. James, Clive (2008), Global Status of Commercialized BiotechiGM Crops: 2008 The First Thirteen Years, 1996 to 2008, available online at: www.isaaa.org/ resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.htmI.
147. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International (2001), vol. 535, U.S. 1013.
148. Judge, Elizabeth F. (2007), Intellectual property law as an internal limit on intellectual property rights and autonomous source of liability for intellectual property owners, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27 (4), 301-313.
149. Kasky v. Nike (2002), 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 296, 27 Cal. 4th 939.
150. Kennedy, Ian (1999), Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues, London, UK: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, available online: www. nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ browseablepublications/gmcrops/report_235.htmt
151. Kershen, Drew L. (2004), On straying crops and patent rights, Washburn lnw Journal, 43 (3), 575-610.
152. Kershen, Drew L. (2005), Monsanto vs. U.S. farmers commentary on the center for food safety report, ISB News Report, (April), 6-7.
153. Koch, Bernhard (ed.) (2007), Liability and Compensation Schemes for Damage Resulting from the Presence of Genetically Modified Organisms in Non-GM Crops, Vienna, Austria: European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law.
154. Koch, Ingwer (2008), The European View on the Patenting of Inventi.ons Involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells, presentation at the Law Meets Industry: Biosciences Patents Conference, 16-17 June, Haifa, Israel.
155. Kramer, Ludwig (2004), Directive 2004/351EC on environmental liability, Journal of Environmental Law and Management, 16 (1),5-13
156. Kubasek, Nancy M., Neil M. Browne and Carrie Williamson (2000), The role of criminal enforcement in attaining environmental compliance in the United States and abroad, University of Baltimore Journal of Environmental Law, 7, 122-160.
157. Lammerding, Anna M. and Greg M. Paoli. (1998), Quantitative risk assessment: An emerging tool for emerging food borne pathogens, Emerging Infectious Disease, 3 (4), 483-487.
158. Langan v. Valicopters (1977),567 P.2d 218.
159. Lee, Maria (2008), The governance of coexistence between GMOs and other forms of agriculture: A purely economic issue?, Journal of Environmental Law, 20 (2), 193-212
160. Lenzerini, Federico (2008), Traditional knowledge, biogenetic resources, genetic engineering and intellectual property rights, in Daniel Wtiger and Thomas Cottier (eds), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 118-148
161. Uoyd, Peter (2003), Report of the Independent Reviewer to the Government of Victoria on Market Impacts of Genetically Modified Canola and Industry Preparedness, available online at: www.jcci.unimelb.edu.au/GMCanola2007/ References.htm.
162. Ma, Julian K.-c., M. Pascal, W. Drake and Paul Christou (2003), The production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants, Nature Reviews Genetics, 4, 794-805.
163. MacLauglin, Sara (2003), Food for the twenty-first century: An analysis of regulations for genetically engineered food in the United States, Canada, and the European Union, Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, 14, 375-407
164. Mamcasz, Eduardo (2006), Brazil's state firm Embrapa creates 14 transgenic species: Seeds are for sale, Brazil Magazine, available online: http://brazzil mag. corn/index. ph p ?option=com_con ten t&task=vi ew &id=52 72& ltemid=53.
165. Marin County (2004), Prohibition of Growing Genetically Modified Organisms, Marin County Ordinance Chapter 6.92, Marin County Code.
166. Martino-Catt, Susan J. and Eric S. Sachs. (2008), Editor's choice series: The next generation of biotech crops, Plant Physiology, 147, 3-5.
167. Mayuga, Jonathan L. (2008), Biotech products to boost agricultural development, BIOLIFE Magazine, January-February.
168. McCloskey, R. (2002), Presentation to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Conference, available online: www.pewtrusts.orgiuploadFiles/ wwwpewtrustsorglReportslFood_and_BiotechnologyIPIFB_Pharmin~Fields. pdf.
169. McHughen, Alan and Stuart Smyth (2008), US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organism (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars, Plant Biotechnology Journal, 6 (2), 2-12
170. McManis, Charles R. (2004), Fitting traditional knowledge and biopiracy into the existing intellectual property and unfair competition framework, in Burton Ong (ed.), Intellectual Property and Biological Resources, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
171. Merkner, Kristina (2004), New law on gene crops a "de-facto ban", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 December, available online: hwww.faz.netis/RubF3CE 08B362D244869BE7984590CB6AC IIDoc-EDF315A 7 5BOE7 491 OAEA0243 16E7 AE077 - ATpl-Ecommon -Scontent.html.
172. Migus, Michael (2004), GMO Statutory Liability Regimes: An International Review, Toronto, Canada: Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy
173. Miller, Henry (2007), How Al Gore harms the environment, Orange County Register, 10 July, Opinion section
174. Minnesota (2006), Minnesota Statute §§ 18F.01-18F.13.
175. Missmer, Stacey A., Lucina Suarez, Marilyn Felkner, Elaine Wang, Alfred. H. Merrill Jr., Kenneth 1. Rothman and Katherine A. Hendricks. (2006), Exposure to fumonisins and the occurrence of neural tube defects along the TexasMexico border, Environmental Health Perspectives, 114, (2),237-241.
176. Missouri (2005), Missouri Revised Statute §§ 261.256-259.
177. Moll, Nathalie (2008), Ecologically, economically and socially sustainable agriculture: The role of GMOs, paper presented at the European Group on Ethics Roundtable on the Ethical Aspects of Modem Developments in Agriculture Technologies, 18 June, Brussels, Belgium
178. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004), vol. 34 Canada,l S.c.R. 902.
179. Monsanto Co. v. David (2008),448F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1094.
180. Monsanto Co. v. McFarling (2003), 302F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002) cert. denied by McFarling v. Monsanto Co., 537 U.S. 1232.
181. Monsanto Co. v. McFarling (2005), 363F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004) cert.
182. denied by McFarling v. Monsanto Co., 545 U.S. 1139.
183. Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs (2006), 459F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006) cert. denied by 127S. Ct. 2062, 167L.Ed2d 770 (2007) No. MDL 1403, 03C 4385 (2005) WL 327020 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
184. Moschini, GianCarlo (2006), Pharmaceutical and Industrial Traits in Genetically Modified Crops: Coexistence with Conventional Agriculture, paper presented at the Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, 23--26 July, Long Beach, California
185. Mostoller, Charles (2008), Monsanto meets resistance in Mexico, COA News, available online at: http://coanews.orglarticle/2008/monsanto-meetsresistancein-mexico.
186. MUller, Alexandra and Dayuan Xue (2006), Biosafety Capacity Building in China: Data Management, Promoting Expertise and Awareness Raising, paper presented at the Compendium of Side Events, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 13-31 March, Curitiba, Brazil
187. Murphy, Sean D. (2001), Biotechnology and international law, Harvard InternationallLlw Journal, 41 0), 47-139.
188. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine (2004), Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
189. Nature (Editorial) (2003), Nature, 416, 601
190. Nellen-Stucky, Rachel and Franois Meienberg (2006), Harvesting royalties for sowing dissent? Monsanto's campaign against Argentina's patent policy, GRAIN, available online: www.grain.org/research/contamination.cfm?id=379.
191. New Scientist (Editorial) (2005), Denmark to tax farmers of GM crops, New Scientist, 3 December
192. New Zealand (2001), Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, Wellington, New Zealand: Printlink
193. New Zealand Law Commission (2002), Liability for Loss Resulting from the Development, Supply or Use of Genetically Modified Organisms, available online at: www.lawcom.govt.nzlProjectStudyPapers.aspx?ProjectID=104.
194. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (2003), Liability Issues, in Summary of Submissions: Improving the Operation of the HSNO Act for New Organisms, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of the Environment, 58-74
195. NGO (2008), Statement on the Biotech Industry "Compact" on Compensation for Damage, available online at: hUp://www.biodiv-network.de/upload/presse/ englischlNgo_StatemencCompacCMay 2008_Bonn_1_. pdf.
196. Nill, Kimball (1998), Glossary of Biotechnology Terms, 2nd ed., The Netherlands: Springer.
197. Nill, Kimball (2006), U.S. soybean production is more sustainable than ever, Agricultural Management Committee Newsletter, August, available online at: www.abanet.orgienviron/committees/agricultinewsletter/aug06/agmgmt0806.pdf.
198. Nordlee, Julie A., Steven L. Taylor, Jeffrey A. Townsend, Laurie A. Thomas and Robert K. Bush (1996), Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans, New England Journal of Medicine, 334 (11), 688-692.
199. Ortiz-Garda, S., E. Ezcurra, B. Schoel, F. Acevedo, J. Sober6n and A.A. Snow (2005), Absence of detectable transgenics in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (35), 12,338-12,343.
200. Paarlberg, Robert (2008), Starvedfor Science: How Biotechnology is Being Kept out of Africa, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
201. Pagh, Peter (2004), Administrative Criminal Law Systems in Europe: An Asset for the Environment?, in Francoise Comte and Ludwig Kramer (eds), Environmental Crime in Europe, Groningen, The Netherlands: Europa Law Publishing, 161-178
202. Peardon, Thomas P. (ed), (1989), The Second Treatise of Government, New York, US: Macmillan Publishing Company.
203. Peckover, Pat. (2005), Supreme court duo battle in small claims court, Humboldt Journal, 31 March.
204. Peiry, Katharina Kummer (2005a), Exemption from liability if the damage was caused by an event outside the control of the liable person, in Biosafety Protocol Process on Liability and Redress: Food for Thought on Key Issues, 21, Villars-sur-Glane, Switzerland: Kummer EcoConsult, available online at: www.ecoconsult.chlupl oadsl 1144-Biosafety _Li ability Discussion_Papers_. pdf.
205. Peiry, Katharina Kummer (2005b), Only persons or entities directly impacted can bring a claim, in Biosafety Protocol Process on Liability and Redress: Food for Thought on Key Issues, 21, Villars-sur-Glane, Switzerland: Kummer EcoConsult, available online at: www.ecoconsult.chluploads/1144-BiosafetyLiabilityDiscussion_Papers_.pdf.
206. Peiry, Katharina Kummer (2005c), Strict liability for environmental damage is normally reserved for hazardous activities, in Biosafety Protocol Process on Liability and Redress: Food for Thought on Key Issues, 21, Villars-sur-Glane, Switzerland: Kummer EcoConsult, available online at: www.ecoconsult.chl uploads/1144-Biosafety _Liability Discussion_Papers_. pdf.
207. Petersen, Frank and Thomas Kuhn (2008), How to link bioprospecting to sustainable capacity building, Business. 2010 Newsletter, 30), 14.
208. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2002), Pharming the Field: A Look at the Benefits and Risks of Bioengineering Plants to Produce Pharmaceuticals, available online at: www.pewtrusts.orgluploadedFiles/ wwwpewtrustsorglReportslFood_and_Biotechnology/PIFB_Pharmin!LFields. pdf.
209. Phillips, Peter W.B., Stuart 1. Smyth and William A. Kerr. (eds), (2006), Governing Risk in the 21st Century: Lessonsfrom the World of Biotechnology, Hauppauge, NY: Nova Sciences Publishers.
210. Potrykus, Ingo (2005), Is GMO over-regulation costing lives?, presentation at bioVISION Conference 11-15 April, Lyon, France
211. Powell, Douglas (2000), Risk based regulatory responses in global food trade: A case study of Guatemalan raspberry imports into the United States and Canada, 1996-1998, in G. Bruce Doem and Ted Reed (eds), Risky Business: Canada's Changing Science-Based Policy and Regulatory Regime, Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, Ch. 6.
212. Quist, David and Ignacio H. Chapela (2001), Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico, Nature, 414, 541-543.
213. Re: StarLink Com Products Liability Litigation (2002), 211F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1062 (N.D. III).
214. Re: Genetically Modified Rice Liability Litigation (2008), 251F.R.D. 392 (E.D. Mo.).
215. Redick, Thomas P. (2003a), Biopharming, biosafety, and billion dollar debacles: Preventing liability for biotech crops, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 8 (1), 115-176.
216. Redick, Thomas P. (2003b), Stewardship for biotech crops: strategies for improving global consumer confidence, Jurimetrics, 44 (5),5-39.
217. Redick, Thomas P. (2005), Liability Prevention and Biotechnology: A Brief History of Successful Industrial Stewardship, paper presented at the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council's Annual Meeting, 7-9 June, Nashville, TN.
218. Redick, Thomas P. (2007), The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Precautionary priority in biotech crop approvals and containment of commodities shipments, Colorado Journal of International E.nvironmental Law and Policy, 18 (1), 51-116.
219. Redick, Thomas P. (2008), Insuring producers of biotech crops and commodities shipments: Comparing Europe and North American approaches, Agricultural Management Committee Newsletter, 13 (1), 17-23.
220. Redick, Thomas P. and Christina G. Bernstein. (2000), Nuisance law and the prevention of "genetic pollution": Declining a dinner date with Damocles, Environmental Law Reporter, 30, 10328-10342.
221. Redick, Thomas P., W. Reavey and D. Michels (1997), Private legal mechanisms for regulating the risks of genetically modified organisms: An alternative path within the biosafety protocol, Environmental Lawyer, 4 (1), 1-77.
222. Rehn, O.c. (2006), Letter from EC commissioner O.c. Rehn to Joschka Fischer, F.R.G. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
223. Ribera, Marie-Christine (2008), Issues at stake when asynchronous approval occurs, paper presented at the JRC-IPTS Workshop on the Global Commercial Pipeline of New GM Crops, 12-13 November, Seville, Spain
224. Richter, Kenneth (2005), GMO-free regions and local areas in EU countries, available online at: www.gmo-free-regions.orgIDownloads/foe_overview_ gmfreeregions. pdf.
225. Rickmers Reismuehle Gmbh v. Riceland Foods, Inc. (2008), Case No. 4-07-CV00000733-JMM (E. Dist. Ark).
226. Rohter, Larry (2007), Scientists are making Brazil's savannah bloom, New York Times, 2 October
227. Ronald, Pamela C. and R.W. Adamchak. (2008), Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
228. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) vol. 3 England, 1L.R. Exch. 265, affd 3L.R.E. & I. App. 330 (H.L.)
229. Sample v. Monsanto Co. (2003), vol. 283 F2003. 283F. Supp. 2d (E.D. Mo. 2003).
230. Sandman, Peter M. (1994), Mass media and environmental risk: seven principles, Risk, Health, Safety, and Environment, 5 (3), 1-7.
231. Sargent, Carey (2005), German state to sue federal government over GM laws, Bloomberg News Service, 11 April
232. Saxony-Anhalt. (2005), Constitutional review of the GenTG.
233. Shand, Hope (2008), Corporations grab climate genes, Foreign Policy in Focus, 13 May
234. Shuchman, Daniel (1988), The liability and regulatory threat to biotech, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, available online at: http://www. manhattan-institute.orglhtml/cjm_6.htm.
235. Shuping, Niu (2008), China to promote more genetically modified crops, Reuters, 10 July
236. Siebrasse, Norman (2001), A property rights theory of the limits of copyright, University of Toronto Law Journal, 51, 1-62
237. Siebrasse, Norman (2004), Comment on Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Canadian Bar Review, 83 (3), 967-992.
238. Siebrasse, Norman (2005), Patent use, intent and remedy in light of Monsanw v. Schmeiser, Canadian Intellectual Property Review, 22 (1), 453-494.
239. Singh, Gurdial N. (2000), The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Implicatiom. for research and development - a third world perspecti ve, available online at: www.twnside.org.sg/titIe/gsn.htm.
240. Singh, Gurdial N. (2009), Liability and Redress Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Options for Developing Countries, available online at: www. docstoc.com/docs/3844444ILIABILITY--REDRESS-UNDERTHE-CARTAG GENA-PROTOCOL-ON-BIOSAFETY
241. Smyth, Stuart J. and Alan McHughen. (2008), Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: The case of regulating genetically mcxlified crops, Plant Biotechnology Journal, 6 (3), 213-225.
242. Smyth, Stuart J. and Peter W.B. Phillips. (2002), Product differentiation alternatives: Identity preservation, segregation and traceability, AgBioForum, 5 (2), 30-42.
243. Smyth, Stuart J. and Peter W.B. Phillips. (2006), Pervasiveness of risk in modern society, in Peter W.B. Phillips, Stuart J. Smyth and William A. Kerr (eds), Governing Risk in the 21 st century: Lessons from the World of Biotechnology, New York: Nova Science Publishers.
244. Snow, A., D. Pilson, L. Rieseberg, M. Paulsen, N. Pleskac, M. Reagon, D. V/olf and S.A. Selbo (2003), Bt transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers, Ecological Applications, 13 (2), 279-286.
245. Staffler, Gionathan Curci (2002), Towards a Reconciliation Between the Convention on Biological Diversity and TRIPS Agreement, PhD Thesis, U ni versity of Geneva
246. Stafford, Ned (2004), Law "may stifle German science", The Scientist, 28 June. Tannenbaum, Wendy (2003), Nike brings commercial speech to Supreme Court, News Media and the Law, 27 (2), 25.
247. Taupitz, Jochen (1993), The German environmental liability law of 1990: Continuing problems and the impact of European regulation, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 19, 13-37
248. Taylor, Michael R., Jody S. Tick and Diane M. Sherman (2004), Tending the Fields: State and Federal Roles in the Oversight of Genetically Modified Crops, available online at: http://www.rff.orgIRFFlDocumentsIRFF-RPTTendingtheFields. pdf.
249. Tengs, T., M. Adams, J. Pliskin, D. Safran, J. Siegel, M. Weinstein and J. Graham (1995), Five hundred life-saving interventions and their costeffectiveness, Risk Analysis, 15 (3), 369-390.
250. Toft, Jesper (2004), National report-Denmark: precautionary expertise for GM crops: Co-existence bypassing risk issues, Science and Public Policy, 32 (4), 293-300
251. Torrance, Andrew W. (2007), Metaphysics and patenting life, University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, 76 (2), 363-403.
252. Truelsen, Pernille Aagaard (1998), Environmental Liability as an Instrument in Danish Environmental Law?, paper presented at the Workshop on Liability, Economics, and Insurance, 22-24 October, Odense, Denmark
253. UC Biotech (2008), Food fights in California, available online at: http://ucbiotech.orglresources/presentations/presentations.html.
254. Uchtmann, Donald L. (2002), StarLink-A case study of agricultural biotechnology regulation, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 7, 160-211.
255. Uchtmann, Donald L. (2004), Symposium: Liability issues: Lessons from StarLink, Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, 10 (2), 1-5.
256. Uchtmann, Donald L. and Gerald C. Nelson. (2000), U.S. regulatory oversight of agricultural and food-related biotechnology, American Behavioral Scientist, 44 (3), 350-377.
257. UK Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (2003), GM Crops? Coexistence and Liability, UK Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
258. United Nations (1992), Convention on Biological Diversity, available online at: www.cbd.int.
259. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (1951), International Plant Protection Convention, available online at: www.ippc.intlIPPlEnldefault.jsp.
260. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (2004), International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, available online at: www.planttreaty.org.
261. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (no date), Standard Material Transfer Agreement, available online: ftp://ftp.fao.orglaglcgrfa/gbl/SMTAe. pdf.
262. United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), Article 14: Impact Assessment and Minimizing Adverse Effects, available online at: www.cbd.intlconventionlarticles.shtml?a=cbd-14.
263. United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000), Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, available online at: http://www.cbd.intlbiosafety/protocol.shtrnl.
264. United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (20.03), The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: A Record of Negotiations, available online at: www.cbd.intldoc/publications/bs-brochure-o.3-en.pdf.
265. United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (20.04), Report of the Technical Group of Experts on Liability and Redress, available online at: www.cbd.intldoc!?mtg=BSTELR-o.1.
266. United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2o.OSa), Report of the Group of Legal and Technical Experts on Liability and Redress in the Context of Paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, available online: www.cbd.intldoc/meetings/lr/eglr-o.l/official/eglro. 1-o.1-en.doc.
267. United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2o.o.5b), Report of the Group of the Friends of the Co-chairs on Liability and Redress under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety on the Work of its First Meeting, available online at: www.cbd.intldoc/meetings/bs/bsgflr-o.l/official/bsgflr-o.1-o.4-en.pdf.
268. United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (20.08), Report on the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, available online at: www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/mop-04/official/moJr04-18-en.pdf.
269. United States (1986), Coordinated Frameworkfor Regulation of Biotechnology, available online at: http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/CoordinatedFrameworkFor RegulationOfBiotechnology 1986. pdf.
270. United States (2000a), Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 2000, 21 U.S.c. US Code.
271. United States (2000b), Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.c. § 136 (Start). US Code.
272. United States (2003), Plant Protection Act, 2003, 7 U.S.c. US Code.
273. United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2005 a), Monsanto Co. and forage genetics international, availability determination of nonregulated status for alfalfa genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, Federal Register, 70 (122), available online: http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-binlPDFgate.cgi?W AISdocID=9o.5761 1 1243+o.+2+o.&WAISaction=retrieve.
274. United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2005b), USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International Petition 04-lIo.-o.1P for Determination of Non-regulated Status for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Events 110.1 and 1163, available online at: www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/ aphisdocs2/04_11Oo.1p_com.pdf.
275. United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2006a), Biotechnology, Federal Regulation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, available online at: www.aphis.usda.gov/publicationslbiotechnology/content/printable_versionlBRS_FS_FedRe~02-06.pdf.
276. United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2006b), National Environmental Policy Act and its Role in USDA's Regulation of Biotechnology, available online at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/publicationslbiotechnologylcontent/printable_versionlBRSFS_NEPA_02-06.pdf.
277. United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (no date), Biotechnology: Noncompliance History, available online at: www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology!compliance_history.shtml.
278. United States Department of Agriculture (1986), Final policy statement for research and regulation of biotechnology processes and products, Federal Register, 51, 23336
279. United States Department of Agriculture (2002), National Organic Program, available online at: www.arns.usda.gov/AMSvl.O/nop.
280. United States Department of Agriculture (2004), Germany: Biotechnology: European Commission not happy with Germany Genetech law, GAIN Report, available online at: www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200408/146107132.pdf.
281. United States Department of Agriculture (2005), Germany Biotechnology annual, GAIN Report, available online at: www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200507/ 146130311.pdf.
282. United States Department of Agriculture (2007), Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, available online at: www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/complete_eis.pdf.
283. United States Department of Agriculture (no date), National Organic Program Final Rule with Request for Comments, available online at: www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards/FullText.pdf (final rule codified at 7 c.F.R. pt. 205).
284. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1997), Issuance of an experimental use permit, Federal Register, 62, 50
285. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998), Certain companies' approval of pesticide product registrations, Federal Register, 63, 158
286. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006), Draft guidance for pesticide registrants on small-scale field testing and low-level intermittent presence in food of plant-incorporated protect ants (PIPs), Federal Registry, 71, 189
287. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007), Guidance on smallscale field testing and low-level presence in food of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs), Federal Registry, 72, 85
288. United States Federal Trade Commission (2008), Guides for the Use 0/ Environmental Marketing Claims, available online at: www.ftc.gov/bep/grnrule/guides980427.htm.
289. VaIiverronen, Esa and lina Hellsten (2002), From "burning library," to "green medicine" the role of metaphors in communicating biodiversity, Science Communication, 24 (2), 229-245
290. van den Daele, Wolfgang, Alfred Plihler and Herbert Sukopp (1997), Biotech Herbicide-Resistant Crops: A Participatory Technology Assessment, Berlin: Federal Republic of Germany Ministry for Research and Technology, on file with authors
291. Van Overwalle, Geertrui (2008a), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Interests, in Daniel Wtiger and Thomas Cottier (eds), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni versity Press
292. Van Overwalle, Geertrui (2008b), Stem cell patents and ethics from an international perspective, presentation at the Law Meets Industry: Biosciences Patents Conference, 16-17 June, Haifa, Israel
293. Venbrux, Greg (2005), When two worlds collide: Ownership of genetic resources under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, University 0/ Pittsburgh Journal o/Technology Law and Policy, 6 (4), 1-35
294. Voss, Kenneth, Ronald Plattner, Janee Gelineau-Van Waes, Ronald Riley and Charles Bacon. (2003), Current trends in mycotoxin research: Deoxynivalenol and fumonisins, paper presented at the National Food Research Intitute's International Symposium on Food Safety, 1-5 November, Tsukuba, Japan.
295. Walters, Reece (2004), Criminology and genetically modified food, British Journal o/Criminology, 44 (2), 151-167
296. Walters, Reece (2006), Crime, bio-agriculture and the exploitation of hunger, British Journal o/Criminology, 46 (1),26-45
297. Weber, W.E. and T. Bringezu (2005), Test of co-existence under German fi.eld conditions-results from the "Erprobungsanbau" 2004 with Bt-maize, in The Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Coexistence Between GM and Non-OM Based Supply Chains, 14-15 November, Montpellier, France.
298. Weiss, Rick (2005), U.S. denies patent for a too-human hybrid, Washington Post, 13 February.
299. Wolfson, Maureen (2008), Perspectives on a horticultural agreement, Business.20l0 Newsletter, 3 (1), 18.
300. World Trade Organization (2006), Interim Report 0/ the Panel: European Communities-Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing 0/ Biotech Products, available online at: www.wto.orglenglishltratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm.
301. Xiao-hua, Su, Zhang Bing-yu, Huang Qin-jung, Huang Lie-jian and Zhang Xiang-hua (2003), Advances in Tree Genetic Engineering in China, paper presented to the World Forestry Congress, 21-28 September, Quebec City, Canada
302. Yamin, Farhana (2003), Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Food Security, Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies