Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-6pznq Total loading time: 0.615 Render date: 2021-03-05T11:16:41.983Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Regulating genetically modified food: Policy trajectories, political culture, and risk perceptions in the U.S., Canada, and EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Anton E. Wohlers
Affiliation:
Department of History and Government South Shepler Center 630 Cameron University Lawton, OK 73505 awohlers@cameron.edu
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

This paper examines whether national differences in political culture add an explanatory dimension to the formulation of policy in the area of biotechnology, especially with respect to genetically modified food. The analysis links the formulation of protective regulatory policies governing genetically modified food to both country and region-specific differences in uncertainty tolerance levels and risk perceptions in the United States, Canada, and European Union. Based on polling data and document analysis, the findings illustrate that these differences matter. Following a mostly opportunistic risk perception within an environment of high tolerance for uncertainty, policymakers in the United States and Canada modified existing regulatory frameworks that govern genetically modified food in their respective countries. In contrast, the mostly cautious perception of new food technologies and low tolerance for uncertainty among European Union member states has contributed to the creation of elaborate and stringent regulatory policies governing genetically modified food.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

1.Reiss, Michael J. and Straughan, Roger, Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
2.Munro, William A. and Schurman, Rachel A., “Sustaining outrage: Cultural capital, strategic location, and motivating sensibilities in the U.S. anti-genetic engineering movement,” in The Eight Over Food. Producers, Consumers, and Activists Challenge the Global Food System, ed. Wright, Winne and Middendorf, Gerad (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), pp. 145176.Google Scholar
3.Jasanoff, Sheila, “Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology,” in Resistance to New Technology. Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, ed. Bauer, Martin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 311331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Dunlop, Claire, “GMOs and regulatory styles.” Environmental Politics 2000, 9(2):149155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Gaskell, George, “Troubled waters: The Atlantic divide on biotechnology policy,” in Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy, ed. Gaskell, George and Bauer, Martin (London: NMSI Trading Ltd, 2001), pp. 96115.Google Scholar
6.Isaac, Grant E., Agricultural Biotechnology and Transatlantic Trade: Regulatory Barriers to GM Crops (New York: CABI Publishing, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Katz, Philip, Macdonald, Penny, and Mackanzie, Gordon, “The evolving GMO food trade policy debate: Towards a global regulatory regime?” in The Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology, ed. Evenson, Robert E. and Santaniello, Vittorio (Cambridge: CABI Publishing, 2004), pp. 2534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Jaffe, Gregory, “Regulating transgenic crops: A comparative analysis of different regulatory processes,” Transgenic Research 2004, 13(1):519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Gaudillière, Jean-Paul, “Globalization and regulation in the biotech world: The transatlantic debates over cancer genes and genetically modified crops,” OSIRIS 2006, 21:251272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Sheingate, Adam D., “Promotion versus precaution: The evolution of biotechnology policy in the United States,” British Journal of Political Science 2006, 36(2):243268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hofstede, Geert, Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980).Google Scholar
12.Margolis, Howard, Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).Google Scholar
13.Williams, Robin M., American Society (New York: Knopf Williams, 1974).Google ScholarPubMed
14.Elazar, Daniel J., American Federalism: A View from the States (New York: Harper & Row, 1984).Google Scholar
15.Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Deutsch, Karl W., Politics and Government (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970).Google Scholar
17.Swedlow, Brendon, “Toward cultural analysis in policy analysis: Picking up where Aaron Wildavsky left off,” journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2002, 4(3):267285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Hoppe, Robert, “Cultures of public policy problems,” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2002, 4(3):305326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Turner, Charles H. and Trompenaars, Alfons, The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: Value Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands (New York: Doubleday Business, 1993).Google Scholar
20.Kevin Steensma, H., Marino, Louis, Mark Weaver, K., and Dickson, Pat H., “The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms,” The Academy of Management Journal 2000, 43(5):951973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Hofstede, Geert, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997).Google Scholar
22.Hofstede, Geert and Hofstede, Gert Jan, Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).Google Scholar
23.Hofstede, and Hofstede, .Google Scholar
24.Yniyurt, Sengun and Townsend, Janell. “Does culture explain acceptance of new products in a country? An empirical investigation.” International Marketing Review, 2003, 20(4):377397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Hofstede, and Hofstede, , p. 190.Google Scholar
26.Rowe, William D., “Risk analysis: A tool for policy decisions,” in Risk and Society: The Interaction of Science and Public Policy, ed. Waterstone, Marvin (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992).Google Scholar
27.Funke, Odelia, “Biopolitics and public policy: Controlling biotechnology.” PS: Political Science and Politics 1985, 18(1):6977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Senge, Peter M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1990).Google Scholar
29.Kelly, George A., The Psychology of Personal Constructs (New York: Norton and Sons, 1955).Google Scholar
30.Eden, Colin and Radford, Jim, Tackling Strategic Problems (Newbury Park: Sage, 1990).Google Scholar
31.Fransella, Fay and Bannister, Don, A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique (London: Academic Press, 1977).Google Scholar
32.Sjöberg, Lennart, “Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology: To overcome the resistance to applications of biotechnology, research on risk perception must take a closer look at the public's reasons for rejecting this technology.” European Molecular Biology Organization 2004, 5:S47S51.Google Scholar
33.Margolis, , p. 76.Google Scholar
34.Slovic, Paul, Fischoff, Baruch, and Lichtenstein, Sarah, “Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk,” in Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? ed. Schwing, Richard and Albers, Walter (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), pp. 181214.Google Scholar
35.Nisbett, Richard and Ross, Lee, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1980).Google Scholar
36.Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel“Rational choice and the framing of decision,” Journal of Business, 1986, 59:251278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Slovic, Paul, “Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm,” in Social Theories of Risk, ed. Krimsky, Sheldon and Golding, Dominic (New York: Praeger, 1992), pp. 117152.Google Scholar
38.Margolis, .Google Scholar
39.Wynne, Brian, “Creating pubic alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs,” Science as Culture 2001, 10(4):445481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Sjöberg, , p. S48.Google Scholar
41.Margolis, , p. 76.Google Scholar
42.Margolis, , pp. 7578.Google Scholar
43.Anderson, James E., Public Policymaking (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990), p. 5.Google Scholar
44.Cobb, Roger W. and Elder, Charles, Participation in American Politics (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972).Google Scholar
45.Ripley, Randall B. and Franklin, Grace A., Policy Implementation and Bureaucracy (Chicago: Dorsey Press, 1986).Google Scholar
46.Lipsky, Michael, Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1980).Google Scholar
47.Senge, Peter M. et al., The Fifth Discipline Handbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1994).Google Scholar
48.Hofstede, and Hofstede, .Google Scholar
49.The Mellman Group, “Memorandum to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Re: Review of Public Opinion Research” (Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2006), http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=32802Google Scholar
50.Hallman, William K. et al., Americans and GM Foods: Knowledge, Opinion, and Interest in 2004 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Food Policy Institute, 2004).Google Scholar
51.Hoban, Thomas J., Public Attitudes Towards Agricultural Biotechnology, ESA Working Paper No. 04–09 (New York: Agricultural and Development Economics Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2004).Google Scholar
52.Hoban, Thomas J., American Consumers' Awareness and Acceptance of Biotechnology (Washington, DC: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 2002).Google Scholar
53.Hoban, Thomas J., “Consumer acceptance of biotechnology in the United States and Japan,” Food Technology 1999, 53:8588.Google Scholar
54.Hoban, Thomas J., “Public perceptions and understanding of agricultural biotechnology,” Economic Perspectives: An Electronic Journal of the Department of State 4 (1999), http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/1099/ijee/bio-hoban.htm (accessed October 14, 2006).Google Scholar
55.Hoban, Thomas J., “Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: An international perspective,” Nature Biotechnology 1997, 15:232234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56.Hoban, Thomas J., “Trends in consumer acceptance and awareness of biotechnology,” Journal of Food Distribution Research 1996, 27(1):110.Google Scholar
57.Hoban, Thomas J., Agricultural Biotechnology: Public Attitudes and Educational Needs (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
58.Schilling, Brian J., Hallman, William K., Adelaja, Adesoji O., and Marxen, Lucas J., Consumer Knowledge of Food Biotechnology. A Descriptive Study of U.S. Residents (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Food Policy Institute, 2002).Google Scholar
59.Wolf, Marianne McGarry and Domegan, Christine, “A comparison of consumer attitudes towards GM food in Ireland and the United States: A case study over time,” in Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods, ed. Santaniollo, Vittorio, Evenson, Robert E., and Zilberman, David (New York: CABI Publishing, 2002), pp. 2538.Google Scholar
60.Hallman, William K. and Metcalfe, Jennifer, Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology: A Survey of New Jersey Residents (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Food Policy Institute, 1994).Google Scholar
61.Hoban, Thomas J. and Kendall, Patricia, Consumer Attitudes About the Use of Biotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
62.Decima Research, Emerging Technologies Tracking (Ottawa: Decima Research, 2006).Google ScholarPubMed
63.Pollara Research, Public Opinion Research into Biotechnology Issues in Canada (Toronto: Pollara Research, 2003).Google Scholar
64.Pollara Research and Earnscliffe Research and Communications, Public Opinion Research into Biotechnology Issues (Ottawa and Toronto: Pollara Research and Earnschliffe Research and Communications, 2000).Google ScholarPubMed
65.Einsiedel, Edna F. and Medlock, Jennifer M., “Canada on the gene trail,” in Biotechnology 1996–2000. The Years of Controversy, ed. Gaskell, George and Bauer, Martin W. (London: NMSI Trading Ltd., 2001), pp. 145156.Google Scholar
66.Oosterveeer, Peter, Global Governance of Food Production and Consumption. Issues and Challenges (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007), p. 120.Google Scholar
67.Food and Drug Administration, “Statement of policy: Foods derived from new plant varieties,” 57 Federal Register, 1992: 2298423005.Google Scholar
68.Hoban, , 1990.Google Scholar
69.Lacy, William B., Busch, Lawrence, and Lacy, Laura L., “Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology,” in Agricultural Biotechnology: Issues and Choices, ed. Baumgardt, Bill R. and Martin, Marshall A. (West Lafayette: Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1991), pp. 139161.Google Scholar
70.Hoban, and Kendall, .Google Scholar
71.Hallman, and Metcalfe, .Google Scholar
72.Hoban, Thomas J., “International acceptance of agricultural biotechnology,” in Agricultural Biotechnology and Environmental Quality: Gene Escape and Pest Resistance, ed. Hardy, Ralph W. F. and Segelken, Jane B. (Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Report, 1998), p. 61.Google Scholar
73.Ferrara, Jennifer, “Paving the way for biotechnology: Federal regulations and industry PR,” in Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenges to Genetic Engineering, ed. Tokar, Brian (London: Zed Books Ltd., 2001), pp. 297305.Google Scholar
74.Toke, Dave, The Politics of GM Food: A Comparative Study of the UK, USA, and EU (London: Routledge, 2004).Google Scholar
75.Barbee, Michael, Politically Incorrect Nutrition: Finding Reality in the Mire of Food Industry Propaganda (Ridgefield: Vital Health Publishing, 2004).Google Scholar
76.Harrington, John C., The Challenge to Power: Money, Investing, and Democracy (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2005).Google Scholar
77.Reilly, John M., “Consumer effects of biotechnology,” Agriculture Information Bulletin December 1989, 581:111.Google Scholar
78.West, Darrell M., Biotechnology Policy Across National Boundaries. The Science-Industrial Complex (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), pp. 5160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79.Food and Drug Administration, “Genetically engineered foods: Fears & facts. An interview with FDA's Jim Maryanski,” FDA Consumer, 1993 (January/February).Google Scholar
80.Food and Drug Administration, Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnNavigation.cfm?rpt=bioListing (accessed May 1, 2010).Google Scholar
81.Vogt, Donna V., Food Biotechnology in the United States: Science, Regulation, and Issues (Washington, DC: CRS Report for Congress, Domestic Social Policy Division), p. CRS 9, http://www.whprp.org/NLE/CRSreports/science/st-41.pdf (accessed May 10, 2010).Google Scholar
82.Food and Drug Administration, 1992.Google Scholar
83.Food and Drug Administration, Biotechnology of Food, FDA Backgrounder BG94-4 (Washington DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, May 18, 1994).Google Scholar
84.Food and Drug Administration, “First biotech tomato marketed,” FDA Consumer Magazine, 1994 (September):34.Google Scholar
85.West, , p. 53.Google Scholar
86.Food and Drug Administration, 1994.Google Scholar
87.Hoban, Thomas J., American Consumers' Awareness and Acceptance of Biotechnology (Washington, DC: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 2002).Google Scholar
88.Hoban, Thomas J., “Consumer acceptance of biotechnology in the United States and Japan,” Food Technology 1999, 53(5):5053.Google Scholar
89.Wolf, McGarry and Domegan, .Google Scholar
90.Schilling, et al.Google Scholar
91.Hallman, et al.Google Scholar
92.Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, p. 3.Google Scholar
93.Hoban, , 1990.Google Scholar
94.Hoban, , 1997.Google Scholar
95.Hoban, , 1999.Google Scholar
96.Hoban, , 2002.Google Scholar
97.Zimmerman, Linda, Kendall, Patricia, Stone, Martha, and Hoban, Thomas, “Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety,” Food Technology 1994, 48(11):7177.Google Scholar
98.Shanahan, James, Scheufele, Dietram, and Lee, Eunjung, “The polls—trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms,” Public Opinion Quarterly 2001, 65:267281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
99.Schilling, et al.Google Scholar
100.McGarry, , Wolf, , and Domegan, .Google Scholar
101.Hallman, et al.Google Scholar
102.Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, p. 2.Google Scholar
103.Winston, Mark, Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 236.Google Scholar
104.Gaskell, George et al., “Biotechnology and the European public,” Nature Biotechnology 2000, 18:935938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
105.Food and Drug Administration, Safety Assurance of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology in the United States (Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 1996).Google Scholar
106.Food and Drug Administration, FDA's Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology (Washington DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 1995).Google Scholar
107.Food and Drug Administration, 1995.Google Scholar
108.Toke, , p. 107.Google Scholar
109.Bucchini, Luca and Goldman, Lynn R., “Starlink corn: A risk analysis,” Environmental Health Perspectives 2002, 110(1):513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
110.Food and Drug Administration, 1996.Google Scholar
111.Statement, , Maryanski, James H.to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, Subject: Biotechnology Issues, October 7, 1999, http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/Hearings_1999/mar99107.htm (accessed September 15, 2006).Google Scholar
112.Statement, Joseph A. Levitt to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, United States Senate, Subject: Regulatory Program for Foods Derived from Plants Using the Tools of Modern Biotechnology, September 26, 2000, http://www.biotech-info.net/JAL.html (accessed September 15, 2006).Google Scholar
113.Food and Drug Administration, “Are bioengineered foods safe?” FDA Consumer Magazine, 2000 (January/February), http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/fda_mag.html (accessed September 25, 2006).Google Scholar
114.Department of Health and Human Services, “Premarket notice concerning bioengineering foods (proposed rule),” 66 Federal Register 12 (January 18, 2001): 47064738, http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096149.htm (accessed November 12, 2009).Google Scholar
115.Food and Drug Administration, “Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods.”Google Scholar
116.Department of Health and Human Services, 2001.Google Scholar
117.Food and Drug Administration, Talk Paper. FDA Proposes Draft Guidance for Industry for New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use (Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2004).Google Scholar
118.Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry. Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use (Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2006).Google Scholar
119.Food and Drug Administration, “Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods.”Google Scholar
120.Carter, Colin A. and Gruère, Guillaume P., “International approval and labeling regulations of genetically modified food in major trading countries,” in Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology. Economic and Policy, ed. Just, Richard E., Alston, Julian M., and Zilberman, David (New York: Springer Science + Business Media), p. 467.Google Scholar
121.Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering (Washington DC: Center for Food and Applied Nutrition, 2001).Google Scholar
122.Food and Drug Administration, 2004.Google Scholar
123.Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry: Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices Derived from Bioengineered Plants for Use in Humans and Animals — Draft Guidance (Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture, 2002).Google Scholar
124.Bren, Linda, “Genetic engineering: The future of foods?” FDA Consumer Magazine 2003 (November-December).Google Scholar
125.Murphy, Denis J., “Improving containment strategies in biopharming,” Plant Biotechnology Journal 2007, 5:555569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
126.Abergel, Elisabeth and Barrett, Katherine, “Putting the cart before the horse: A review of biotechnology policy in Canada,” Journal of Canadian Studies 2002, 37(3):135161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
127.Abergel, and Barrett, , p. 138Google Scholar
128.Abergel, and Barrett, , p. 141.Google Scholar
129.Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Hearing (Ottawa: Canadian House of Commons, June 12, 2003).Google ScholarPubMed
130.Abergel, and Barrett, , pp. 142143.Google Scholar
131.Andree, Peter, “The biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada,” Journal of Canadian Studies 2002, 37(3):162191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
132.Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Evidence (Ottawa: Canadian House of Commons, May 12, 1998).Google ScholarPubMed
133.Andree, Peter, “GM food regulation. An analysis of efforts to improve genetically modified food regulation in Canada,” Science and Public Policy 2006, 33(5):377389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
134.Skogstad, Grace, “Science and technology: Politicians and the public,” in The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics, ed. Courtney, John C. and Smith, David E. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 699726.Google Scholar
135.Grant, , p. 199.Google Scholar
136.Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Foods in Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, 2002), http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/C2-589-2001-1E.pdf (accessed October 21, 2009).Google Scholar
137.Isaac, Grant E. and Hobbs, Jill E., “GM food regulations: Canadian debates,” Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2002, 3(2):105113.Google Scholar
138.Andree, , 2006.Google Scholar
139.Health Canada, Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. Vol. 1. Preamble and Guidance Scheme for Notification (Ottawa: Food Directorate Health Protection Branch, 1994), http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/legislation/nvvli-eng.pdf (accessed November 1, 2009).Google Scholar
140.Health Canada, Approved Products (Ottawa: Food Directorate Health Protection Branch, 2010), http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/index-eng.php (accessed May 5, 2010).Google ScholarPubMed
141.Barbee, , p. 70.Google Scholar
142.Health Canada, Information: Safety Assessment of the Flavr-Savr Tomato, http://www.hc-sc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/favr_savtm_tomato_tomate_flavr_savrmd_e.html (accessed September 14, 2006).Google Scholar
143.Health Canada, Information: Safety Assessment of the Flavr-Savr Tomato.Google Scholar
144.Andree, , 2002, p. 177.Google Scholar
145.Einsiedel, and Medlock, , p. 153.Google Scholar
146.Pollara Research and Earnscliffe Research and Communications.Google Scholar
147.Einsiedel, and Medlock, , p. 153.Google Scholar
148.Decima Research.Google Scholar
149.Pollara Research, p. 4.Google Scholar
150.Pollara Research, p. 4.Google Scholar
151.Health Canada, 1994.Google Scholar
152.Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat, Canadian Biotechnology Strategy: An Ongoing Renewal Process (Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Secretariat, 1998), http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/ENGLISH/View.asp?pmiid=520&x=535 (accessed April 4, 2010).Google Scholar
153.Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Biotechnology Transforming Society: Creating an Innovative Economy and a Higher Quality of Life. Report on Biotechnology 1998–2003 (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2003).Google Scholar
154.Codex Alimentarius Commission, Report of the First Session of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology (Rome: World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, April 2000), ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/ALINORM01/A101_34e.pdf (accessed May 1, 2010).Google Scholar
155.Peter Andree, 2006.Google Scholar
156.Skogstad, Grace, Internationalization and Canadian Agriculture: Policy and Governing Paradigms (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), p. 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
157.Pollara Research.Google Scholar
158.Decima Research.Google Scholar
159.Isaac, , p. 211.Google Scholar
160.OECD, Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. Safety Considerations for Industrial, Agricultural and Environmental Applications of Organisms Derived by Recombinant DNA Techniques (Paris: OECD, 1986), http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/34/40986855.pdf (accessed May 4, 2010).Google Scholar
161.Levidow, Les, “Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM crops in Europe,” Social Studies of Science 2001, 31(6):842874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
162.Löfstedt, Ragnar E., Fischhoff, Baruk, and Fischhoff, Ilya, “Precautionary principles: General definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2002, 21(3):381407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
163.Christoforou, Theofanis, “The precautionary principle, risk assessment, and the comparative role of science in the European Community and the U.S. legal system,” in Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union, ed. Vig, Norman J. and Faure, Michael G. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004), pp. 1752.Google Scholar
164.Toke, , p. 157.Google Scholar
165.Levidow, , p. 849.Google Scholar
166.European Communities, “Council directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms,” Official Journal of the European Communities, 1990, L117.Google Scholar
167.European Communities, “Council directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms,” Official Journal of the European Communities, 1990:L00150027.Google Scholar
168.European Commission, EU Policy on Biotechnology (Luxembourg: European Commission Environment DG, 2006), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biotechnology/pdf/eu_policy_biotechnology.pdf (accessed March 24, 2010).Google ScholarPubMed
169.Pollack, Mark A. and Shaffer, Gregory C., “Biotechnology: The next transatlantic trade war,” Washington Quarterly 2000, 23(4):4154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
170.Anderson, Dan R., “Biotechnology risk management: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),” CPCU Journal 2000, 54:215230.Google Scholar
171.Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2003), http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=24138 (accessed May 1, 2010).Google Scholar
172.Toke, , pp. 141182.Google Scholar
173.Speech 02/314, Byrne, David, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, to a Plenary Session of the European Parliament, Subject: GM Food and Feed (Strasbourg: European Parliament, July 2, 2002).Google Scholar
174.Speech 01/378, Byrne, David, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Subject: Proposal for a Regulation on GM Food and Feed (Brussels: European Parliament, September 11, 2001).Google Scholar
175.Marris, Claire, Wynne, Brian, Simmons, Peter, Weldon, Sue et al., Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe. Final Report of the PABE Research Project (Brussels: Commission of European Communities, 2001).Google Scholar
176.Toke, , pp. 145156.Google Scholar
177.Bonny, Sylvie, “Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe,” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 2003, 6(1):5271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
178.Toffel, Michael W. and Heyman, James E., An Atlantic Divide? European and American Attitudes on Genetically Engineered Food. Working paper. (University of California, Berkeley: Haas School of Business, 2002).Google Scholar
179.McGarry, , Wolf, , and Domegan, .Google Scholar
180.Verdurme, Annelies et al., “Differences in public acceptance between generic and premium branded GM food products: An analytical model,” in Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods, ed. Santaniollo, Vittorio, Evenson, Robert E., and Zilberman, David (New York: CABI Publishing, 2001), pp. 3947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
181.Marris, et al.Google Scholar
182.Hanf, Claus-Hennig and Böker, Andreas, “Is European consumers' refusal of GM food a serious obstacle or a transient fashion?” in Market Development for Genetically Modified Foods, ed. Santaniollo, Vittorio, Evenson, Robert E., and Zilberman, David (New York: CABI Publishing, 2001), pp. 4954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
183.Gaskell, George, Allum, Nick, and Stares, Sally, Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 2002, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf (accessed September 3, 2009).Google Scholar
184.Gaskell, George et al., Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf (accessed September 3, 2009).Google Scholar
185.Lee, Maria, EU Regulation of GMOs. Law and Decision Making for a New Technology (Chelensham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008), pp. 24.Google Scholar
186.Andree, , 2006, p. 4.Google Scholar
187.Bonny, , p. 55Google Scholar
188.Commission of the European Communities, White Paper on Food Safety (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2000), http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf (accessed March 24, 2010).Google ScholarPubMed
189.O'Rourke, Raymond, European Food Law, 3rd ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., 2005), pp. 193198.Google Scholar
190.Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission. Towards a Strategic Vision of Life Sciences and Biotechnology Consultation Document (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2001), http://ec.europa.eu/biotechnology/docs/doc_en.pdf (accessed March 24, 2010).Google Scholar
191.Stemke, Douglas J., “Genetically modified organisms: Biosafety and ethical issues,” in The GMO Handbook. Genetically Modified Animals, Microbes and Plants in Biotechnology, ed. Parekh, Sarah R. (Totowa: Humana Press, 2004), p. 108.Google Scholar
192.Carter, Colin A. and Gruère, Guillaume P., “International approval and labeling regulations of genetically modified food in major trading countries,” in Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology. Economic and Policy, ed. Just, Richard E., Alston, Julian M., and Zilberman, David (New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2006), p. 470.Google Scholar
193.European Union, Regulation (EC) No 182'9/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed (European Union: Official Journal of the European Union. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003): L268/5.Google Scholar
194.Shaffer, Gregory C. and Pollack, Mark A., “The EU regulatory system of GMOs”, in Uncertain Risks Regulated, ed. Everson, Michelle and Vo, Ellen (New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2009), p. 280.Google Scholar
195.Tzotzos, George T., Head, Graham P., and Hull, Roger, Genetically Modified Plants. Assessing Safety and Managing Risk (San Diego: Academic Press, 2009), pp. 138143.Google Scholar
196.Commission of the European Communities, 2001.Google Scholar
197.European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee. Life Sciences and Biotechnology—A Strategy for Europe. Second Progress Report and Future Orientations (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, April 4, 2004), http://ec.europa.eu/biotechnology/docs/com2004-250_en.pdf (accessed May 20, 2010).Google Scholar
198.European Commission, List of the Genetically Modified Material which has Benefited from a Favorable Risk Evaluation Within the Meaning of Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (Luxembourg: European Commission, 2006), http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/events_en.pdf (accessed May 20, 2010).Google Scholar
199.Anderson, Luke, Genetic Engineering, Food, and Our Environment (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2000).Google Scholar
200.McGarry, , Wolf, , and Domegan, .Google Scholar
201.Hanf, and Böker, , p. 51.Google Scholar
202.Peters, Hans Peter, Lang, John T., Sawicka, Magdalena, and Hallman, William K., “Culture and technological innovation: Impact of institutional trust and appreciation of nature on attitudes towards food biotechnology in the USA and Germany,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2007, 19(2):191220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 25 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 5th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Regulating genetically modified food: Policy trajectories, political culture, and risk perceptions in the U.S., Canada, and EU
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Regulating genetically modified food: Policy trajectories, political culture, and risk perceptions in the U.S., Canada, and EU
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Regulating genetically modified food: Policy trajectories, political culture, and risk perceptions in the U.S., Canada, and EU
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *