Ackerman, F. and Heinzerling, L., Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing, The New Press, 2004.Google Scholar

,Advisory Committee on Pesticides, A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in the UK and the Role of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, ACP 19 (311/2005). Available at: www.pesticides.gov.uk/acp.asp (accessed 1 March 2010).

,Advisory Committee on Pesticides, Minutes of the 290th Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) on 4 March 2002. Available at: www.pesticides.gov.uk/acp.asp?id=269 (accessed 1 March 2010).

Applegate, J. S., ‘The Perils of Unreasonable Risk: Information, Regulatory Policy and Toxic Substances Control’, Col L. Rev., 91:2 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Applegate, J. S., ‘Worst Things First: Risk, Information, and Regulatory Structure in Toxic Substances Control’, Yale J. on Reg., 9 (1992).Google Scholar

Applegate, J. S., ‘A Beginning and not an End in Itself: The Role of Risk Assessment in Environmental Decision-Making’, U. Cin. L. Rev., 63 (1994/1995).Google Scholar

Applegate, J. S., ‘Beyond the Usual Suspects: The Use of Citizens Advisory Boards in Environmental Decision-making’, Ind. L.J., 73 (1998).Google Scholar

Applegate, J. S., ‘The Precautionary Preference: An American Perspective on the Precautionary Principle’, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 6:3 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, E., Value in Ethics and Economics, Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Anderson, F., Chirba-Martin, M. A., Elliott, E. D., Farina, C., Gellhorn, E., Graham, J. D., Gray, C. Boyden, Holmstead, J., Levin, R. M., Noah, L., Rhyne, K. and Wiener, J. B., ‘Regulatory Improvement Legislation: Risk Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Judicial Review’, Duke Env. L. & Pol'y F., 11 (2000).Google Scholar

Antonopolou, L. and Meurs, P., ‘The Precautionary Principle within European Union Public Health Policy: The Implementation of the Principle under Conditions of Supranationality and Citizenship’, Health Policy, 66 (2003).Google Scholar

Arrow, K. I., ‘Know a Hawk from a Handsaw’, in Szenberg, M. (ed.), Eminent Economists: Their Life and Philosophies, Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Asselt, M. B. A. van, Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk: The PRIMA Approach to Decision Support, Kluwer, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asselt, M. B. A. van and Vos, E., ‘The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox’, Journal of Risk Research, 9 (2006), 4.Google Scholar

Atik, J. and Wirth, D. A., ‘Science and International Trade – Third Generation Scholarship’, B.C Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 26 (2003).Google Scholar

Babich, A., ‘Too Much Science in Environmental Law’, Colum. J. Envl. L., 28 (2003).Google Scholar

Beck, U., Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publishers, 1992.Google Scholar

Beck, U., World Risk Society. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999.Google Scholar

Bengtsson, B., Speciell fastighetsrätt, Iustus, 1999.Google Scholar

Bengtsson, B., Miljöbalkens återverkningar, Norstedts, 2001.Google Scholar

Bergkamp, L., ‘Understanding the Precautionary Principle (Parts I and II)’, Env. Liability, 10 (2002).Google Scholar

Bergkvist, P., ‘PM inför beslut om fortsatt godkännande för EBDC-medel’ (not published).

Bergqvist, U., et al., ‘Exponering för radiofrekventa fält och mobiltelefoni’, SSE rapport: 09 (April 2001) (2001).

Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N.et al., Environment and Trade: A Guide to WTO Jurisprudence, Earthscan, 2006.Google Scholar

Bernstein, P. L., Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1996.Google Scholar

Bisgaard, C., ‘Assessing the Standard of Review for Trade-Restrictive Measures in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement’, in Brown Weiss, E. and Jackson, J. H., Reconciling Environment and Trade, Transnational Publishers, 2001.Google Scholar

Blank, M., ‘The Precautionary Principle Must Be Guided by EMF Research’, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bodansky, D., ‘Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle’, Environment 33 (1991) 4–5.Google Scholar

Bodansky, D., ‘Commentary: The Precautionary Principle’, Environment, 34 (1992), 4–5.Google Scholar

Bohanes, J., ‘Risk Regulation in WTO Law: A Procedure-based Approach to the Precautionary Principle’, Colum. J. Transnat. L., 40 (2001–2002).Google Scholar

Bossche, P. van den, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization, Cambridge University Press, 1st edn 2005, 2nd edn 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bossche, P. van den and Prevost, D., ‘The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures’, in P. Mcrory, , Appleton, A. and Plummer, M. (eds.), The World Trade Organisation: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis, Springer, 2005.Google Scholar

Breyer, S., Breaking the Vicious Circle: Towards Effective Risk Regulation, Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Brickman, R., Jasanoff, S. and Ilgen, T., Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulation in Europe and the United States, Cornell University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Burgess, A., Cellular Phones, Public Fears, And a Culture of Precaution, Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Button, C., The Power to Protect: Trade, Health and Uncertainty in the WTO, Hart, 2004.Google Scholar

Calster, G. van, International and EU Trade Law: The Environmental Challenge. Cameron/May, 2000.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. and Abouchar, J., ‘The Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law’, in Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (eds.), The Precautionary Principle in International Law: The Challenge of Implementation, Kluwer Law International, 1996.Google Scholar

Cameron, J., ‘The Precautionary Principle in International Law’, in O'Riordan, T., Cameron, J. and Jordan, A. (eds.), Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle, Cameron May, 2001.Google Scholar

Cane, P., Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Carson, R., Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, 1962.Google Scholar

Cecot, C., Hahn, R., Renda, A. and Schrefler, L., ‘An Evaluation of the Quality of Impact Assessment in the European Union with Lessons for the US and the EU’, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Working Paper, December 2007.

Chittenden, F., Ambler, T. and Xiao, D., ‘Impact Assessment in the EU’, in S. Weatherill, Better Regulation, Hart Publishing, 2007.Google Scholar

Christoforou, T., ‘Science, Law and Precaution in Dispute Resolutions on Health and Environmental Protection: What Role for Scientific Experts?’, in J. Bourrinet and S. Maljean-Dubois, Le commerce international des organismes génétiquement modifies, Aix-Marseilles/Paris, 2002.Google Scholar

Coggon, D., ‘The Precautionary Principle and Pesticide Regulation’, Chairman's Paper for ACP Open Meeting 2001. Available at: www.pesticides.gov.uk/acp.asp?id=490 (accessed 1 March 2010).

Covello, V. T., ‘Risk Communication’, in P. Calow, , Handbook of Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, Wiley Blackwell, 1998.Google Scholar

Cranor, C. F., ‘Asymmetric Information, the Precautionary Principle, and Burdens of Proof’, in Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Croley, P. and Jackson, J. H., ‘WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review and Deference to National Governments’, AM. J. Int'l L., 90 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croley, S., ‘White House Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Empirical Investigation’, U. Chi. L. Rev., 70 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damon, W. A., ‘The Alkali Act: Its Administration and Relation to Chemical Industry’, Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, 54:50 (2007), 1070–5. Published online 29 May 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Danish Environmental Assessment Institute, Getting Proportions Right: How Far Should the EU Impact Assessments Go?, Environmental Assessment Institute, 2006.Google Scholar

Sadeleer, N., ‘Procedures for Derogations from the Principle of Approximation of Laws under Article 95 EC’, CMLRev, 40 (2003).Google Scholar

Sadeleer, N., ‘The Precautionary Principle in European Community Health and Environmental Law’, ELJ, 12:2 (2006).Google Scholar

Sadeleer, N., Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic Countries, the EU and the USA, Earthscan, 2007.Google Scholar

Sadeleer, N., ‘The Precautionary Principle in European Community Health and Environment Law: Sword or Shield for the Nordic Countries?’, in Sadeleer, N., Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, Earthscan, 2007.Google Scholar

,Department for Environment: Food and Rural Affairs UK. A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Environmental Protection, HMSO, 1995.Google Scholar

,Department for Environment: Food and Rural Affairs UK News Release, 19 April 2002. Available at: www.hse.gov.uk/press/2002/e02076.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).

,Department for Environment: Food and Rural Affairs UK Figure 2.1. Available at:www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/risk/eramguide/(accessed 1 March 2010).

,Department for Environment: Food and Rural Affairs UKGuidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management. Available at:www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/risk/eramguide/ (accessed 1 March 2010).

Dinham, B., ‘Why Paraquat Should Be Banned’, Outlook on Pest Management, December 2004.

Douglas, M. and Wildawsky, A., Risk and Culture, University of California Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Douma, W., ‘The Precautionary Principle; Its Application in International, European and Dutch Law’, Proefshchrift Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 6 January 2003.

Dunkelberger, E. and Merrill, R. A., ‘The Delaney Paradox Re-examined: Regulating Pesticides in Processed Foods’, Food & Drug L. J., 48 (1993).Google Scholar

Duriodé, B., ‘Plastic Panics: European Risk Regulation in the Aftermath of BSE’, in Morris, J. (ed.), Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.Google Scholar

Duriodé, B., ‘The True Cost of Precautionary Chemicals Regulation’, Risk Analysis, 23:2 (2003).Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle, Harvard University Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Ehlerman, C.-D., ‘The Internal Market Following the Single European Act’, CMLRev, 24 (1987).Google Scholar

Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A., The End of Affluence: A Blueprint for your Future, Ballantine Books, 1974.Google Scholar

Ekelöf, P. O., Rättegång IV, Norstedts, 2009.Google Scholar

Ellis, E. (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, Oxford University Press, 1999.

Eriksson, M. Band, ‘Placera masten rätt: Miljö och naturskyddskrav på 3G-utbyggnaden’, Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen Rapport, Svenska Natuskyddsföreningen 2003.

Fidler, D. P., International Law and Public Health, Transnational Publishers Inc., 2000.Google Scholar

Finkel, A. M. and Golding, D., Worst Things First? The Debate over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, Resources for the Future, 1994.Google Scholar

Fischoff, B., ‘Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process’, Risk Analysis, 15:2 (1995), 133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisher, E., ‘Is the Precautionary Principle Justiciable?’, J. Env. L., 13:3 (2001).Google Scholar

Fisher, E., ‘The Rise of the Risk Commonwealth and the Challenge for Administrative Law’, Public Law (2003), 455–78.Google Scholar

Fisher, E., Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism, Hart Publishing, 2007.Google Scholar

Fisher, E., et al., Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, M., Contemporary Issues in International Environmental Law, Edgar Elgar Publishing, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flick, C., ‘The Movement for Smoke Abatement in 19th-Century Britain’, Technology and Culture, 21:1 (1980), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ford, R., ‘Planning For a New Telecommunications Network in the UK’, J.P.L., September (2001).Google Scholar

Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (eds.), The Precautionary Principle in International Law: The Challenge of Implementation, Kluwer Law International, 1996.

Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R., Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Kluwer, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Funtowicz, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R., ‘Science for the Post-Normal Age’, Futures, 25:7 (1993), 739–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Furedi, F. ‘Precautionary Culture and the Rise of Possibilistic Risk Assessment’, Erasmus Law Review, 2:2 (2009).Google Scholar

Geiser, K., ‘Establish a General Duty of Precaution in Environmental Protection Policies in the United States: A Proposal’, in Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Gerber, B. M., ‘Case Comment: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California v. Abrams’, Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., 30 (2006).Google Scholar

Gocha, N., Rohm and Haas Comments on DeZäta Granulat Registration withdrawal by KemI, 18 January 1995 (not published).

Goldstein, B. D., ‘The Interface Between Science and Law’, Colum. J. Envtl. L., 14 (1989).Google Scholar

Goldstein, B. D. and Carruth, R. S., ‘Science in the Regulatory Process: Implications of the Precautionary Principle for Environmental Regulation in the United States: Examples from the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments’, Law & Contemp. Prob., 66 (2003).Google Scholar

Graf, M. W., ‘Regulating Pesticide Pollution in California Under the 1986 Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Exposure Act (Proposition 65)’, Ecology L.Q., 28 (2001).Google Scholar

Graham, J. D., ‘Legislative Approaches to Achieving More Protection Against Risk at Less Cost’, U Chi L F 13, (1997).Google Scholar

Graham, J. D., ‘The Perils of the Precautionary Principle: Lessons from the American and European Experience’, Speech before the Heritage Foundation, Washington DC, 20 October 2003. Available at: www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/hl818.cfm (accessed 1 March 2010).

Graham, J. D., ‘The Evolving Regulatory Role of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1:2 (2007), 171–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graham, J. D. and Hartwell, J. K., ‘The Risk Management Approach’, in: Graham, J. D. and Hartwell, J. K. (eds.), The Greening of Industry, Harvard University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Graham, J. D. and Hsia, S.. ‘Europe's Precautionary Principle: Promise and Pitfalls’, Journal of Risk Research, 5:4 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Graham, J. D. and Wiener, J. B., Risk versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment, Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Grando, M. T., ‘Allocating the Burden of Proof in WTO Disputes: A Critical Analysis, Journal of International Economic Law, 9:3 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grasso, L., ‘Cellular Telephones and the Potential Hazards of RF Radiation: Responses to the Fear and Controversy’, Va. J.L. & Tech., 3 (1998).Google Scholar

Grimeaud, D. Hoofdstuk. ‘The Precautionary Principle in International Environmental and Trade Law’, in Faure, M. and Vos, E. (eds.), Juridische afbakening van het voorzorgbeginsel: mogelijkheden en grenzen, Achtergrondstudie voor de Nederlandse Gezondheidsraad, No. A03/03, 2003.

Gustin, T. L., ‘The Perpetual Growth and Controversy of the Cellular Superhighway: Cellular Tower Siting and the Telecommunications Act of 1969’, Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., 23 (1997).Google Scholar

Hafner, K., ‘First Come Cellphone Towers, then the Babel’, New York Times, Section 1, Page 1, 1 May 2005.Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W. and Hird, J. A., ‘The Costs and Benefits of Regulation: Review and Synthesis’, Yale J. on Reg., 8 (1991).Google Scholar

Hahn, R. W. and Sunstein, C. R., ‘A New Executive Order for Improving Federal Regulation? Deeper and Wider Cost-Benefit Analysis’, Chicago Working Paper in Law & Economics, No. 150, 04/2002, p. 1. Available at: www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/wp1–50.html (accessed 1 March 2010).Google Scholar

Haigh, N., ‘The Introduction of the Precautionary Principle into the UK’, in O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, Earthscan, 1994.Google Scholar

Hajer, M., Environmental Discourse, Clarendon Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Hammitt, J. K., ‘Improving Comparative Risk Analysis’, Duke Envtl. L. & Pol'y F, 8 (1997).Google Scholar

Hanekamp, J. C., ‘Neither Acceptable nor Certain – Cold War Antics for 21st Century Precautionary Culture’, Erasmus Law Review, 2:2 (2009).Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, Clarendon Press, 1961.Google Scholar

,Health Protection Agency. AGNIR reports. Available at: www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733801791 (accessed 1 March 2010).

Heinzerling, L., ‘Regulatory Costs of Mythic Proportions’, Yale Law Journal, 107 (1981).Google Scholar

Hilson, C., ‘Planning Law and Public Perceptions of Risk: Evidence of Concern or Concern Based on Evidence’, J.P.L (2004).Google Scholar

Treasury, HM, The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, 2003. Available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Treasury, HM, Managing Risks to the Public: Appraisal Guidance, 2005. Available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_greenbook_index.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).

Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C., ‘Burden of Proof in Environmental Disputes in the WTO: Legal Aspects’, EELR, 18:2 (2009).Google Scholar

,House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee Publications, Third Report, printed on 2 September 1999, Annex 2. Available at: www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsctech/489/48902.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).

,House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee Publications, Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making, 7th Report of Session 2005–2006, Vol. I, Authority of the House of Commons, 2006. Available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900-i.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

,House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee Publications, ‘Government Policy on the Management of Risk’, 5th Report of Session 2005–2006, Vol. I and II: Minutes of Evidence, Authority of the House of Lords, 2006. Available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/183/183ii.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Howse, R., ‘Democracy, Science, and Free Trade: Risk Regulation on Trial at the World Trade Organization’, Mich. L. Rev., 98 (2000), 2333–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. Homepage. Available at: www.iegmp.org.uk (accessed 1 March 2010).

,Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones ‘Mobile Phones and Health’, 11 May 2000, 1.30–1.48. Available at: www.iegmp.org.uk/report/text.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).

,International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ‘Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHZ)’, Health Physics, 74:4 (1998).Google Scholar

,International Program on Chemical Safety (INCHEM) Poison Information Monograph (PIM) Nr. 399. Available at: www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim399.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).

Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A. and Webler, T., Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action, Earthscan, 2001.Google Scholar

Jans, J. ‘Proportionality Revisited’, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 27:3 (2000), 239–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasanoff, S.The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers, Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S.Science at the Bar, Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Johnston, B. L., Environmental Policy and Public Health, CRC Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Johnston, J. C., ‘A Game Theoretic Analysis of Alternative Institutions for Regulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis’, U. Pa. L Rev., 150:5 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnston, J. C., ‘Paradoxes of the Safe Society: A Rational Actor Approach to the Reconceptualization of Risk and the Reformation of Risk Regulation’, U. Pa. L Rev., 151:5 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jordan, A., ‘The Precautionary Principle in the European Union’, in O'Riordan, T., Cameron, J. and Jordan, A. (eds.), Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle, Cameron May, 2001.Google Scholar

Jowell, J. ‘Of Vires and Vacuums: The Constitutional Context of Judicial Review’, in Forsyth, C. (ed.), Judicial Review and the Constitution, Hart Publishing. 2000.Google Scholar

Kagan, E. ‘Presidential Administration’, Harv. L. Rev., 114 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk’, Econometrica, 47:2 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kannan, P. M., ‘The Precautionary Principle: More than a Cameo Appearance in United States Environmental Law’, Wm. & Mary Envtl. L & Pol'y Rev, 31 (2007).Google Scholar

Karlsson, M., ‘The Precautionary Principle, Swedish Chemicals Policy and Sustainable Development’, Journal of Risk Research, 9:4 (2006), 344–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelly, C. R., ‘Power, Linkage and Accommodation: The WTO as an International Actor and Its Influence on Other Actors and Regimes’, Berkely J. Int'l L., 24 (2006).Google Scholar

,KEMI Swedish Chemicals Agency, Principles for Identifying Unacceptable Pesticides, KemI Report, No. 4/ 92, National Swedish Chemical Inspectorate, 1992.

,KEMI Swedish Chemicals Agency, Statement of 16 September 2003. Available at: www.kemi.se/templates/News____3090.aspx (accessed 1 March 2010).

Kent, C. W. and Allen, F. W., ‘An Overview of Risk-Based Priority Setting at EPA’, in Finkel, A. M. and Golding, D., Worst Things First? The Debate Over Risk-Based National Environmental Priorities, Resources for the Future, 1994.Google Scholar

Keynes, J. M. ‘The General Theory of Employment’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 51 (1937).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, J. ‘Application of Risk Assessment in Policy and Legislation in the European Union and in the United Kingdom’, in Calow, P., Handbook of Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, Blackwell Science, 1998.Google Scholar

Kiss, A. C. and Shelton, D.., International Environmental Law, Transnational Publishers, 1994.Google Scholar

Knight, F., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1933.Google Scholar

Krämer, L., EC Environmental Law, Sweet and Maxwell, 2000.Google Scholar

Kriebel, D., ‘How Much Evidence is Enough? Conventions of Causal Inference’, Law & Contemp. Probs., 72 (2009).Google Scholar

Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar

Ladeur, K.-H. ‘The Introduction of the Precautionary Principle into EU Law: A Pyrrhic Victory for Environmental and Public Health Law? Decision-making Under Conditions of Complexity in Multi-level Political Systems’, CMLR, 40:6 (2003).Google Scholar

Lavranos, N., ‘The Epilogue in the MOX Plant Dispute: An End Without Findings’, EELR, 18:3 (2009).Google Scholar

Lehrberg, B., Praktisk juridisk metod, Iustus Förlag, 2001.Google Scholar

Lemons, J., Schrader-Frechette, K. and Cranor, C., ‘The Precautionary Principle: Scientific Uncertainty and Type I and Type II Errors’, Foundations of Science, 2:2 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindblom, P. H., Miljöprocess Del II, Iustus, 2002.Google Scholar

Loewenberg, S., ‘Precaution is for Europeans’, New York Times, Section 4, p. 14, 18 May 2003.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, R., ‘The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States’, Risk Analysis, 21 (2002).Google Scholar

Löfstedt, R., ‘Risk Communication and Management in the Twenty-First Century’, 7:3 International Public Management Journal 335, 2004.Google Scholar

Löfstedt, R., ‘The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Analysis’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28:2 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Löfstedt, R., Risk Management in Post-Trust Societies, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Löfstedt, R., ‘The Plateau-ing of the European Better Regulation Agenda: An analysis of Activities Carried out by the Barroso Commission’, Journal of Risk Research, 10:4 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Löfstedt, R. and Fairman, R., ‘Scientific Peer Review to Inform Regulatory Decision Making: A European Perspective’, Risk Analysis, 26:1 (2006), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Löfstedt, R. and Vogel, D. ‘The Changing Character of Consumer and Environmental Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States’, Risk Analysis, 21:3 (2001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lorde Martin, S., ‘Communication Tower Sitings: the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Battle for Community Control’, B.T.L.J., 12:2 (1997). Available at: www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol12/index.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).Google Scholar

MacCormack, G., ‘Scandinavian Realism’, The Juridical Review, 1970.Google Scholar

Madeley, J., ‘Paraquat – Syngenta's controversial herbicide’, SSNC Report 2002, pp. 10–12. Available at www.chemsec.org/images/stories/news_publications/rap-inter-syngenta-paraquat.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Majone, G., ‘The Precautionary Principle and Regulatory Impact Analysis’. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Regulatory Impact Analysis. Rome 15 June 2001.

Marchant, G. E. and Mossman, K. L., Arbitrary and Capricious: The Precautionary Principle in the European Union Courts, American Enterprise Institute Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Marr, S., The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea: Modern Decision Making in International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar

McElveen, J. C. and Amatea, C., ‘Risk Symposium: Legislating Risk Assessment’, U. Cin. L. Rev., 63 (1995).Google Scholar

McNelis, N., ‘EU Communication on the Precautionary Principle’, JIEL, 3:3 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meadows, D.et al., The Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind, Universe Books, 1974.Google Scholar

Meddelandeblad från Socialstyrelsen till kommunala miljö- och hälsoskyddsnämnder, länsstyrelser och andra berörda myndigheter, June 2008. Available at: www.fas.se/upload/dokument/särskilda_områden/eloverkanslighet/2008–1-11_2008112.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Meuwese, A. C. M., ‘Inter-institutionalising EU Impact Assessment’, in Weatherill, S., Better Regulation, Hart Publishing, 2007.Google Scholar

Michanek, G., ‘Att väga säkert och vikten av att säkra’, in Basse, E. M.et al. (eds.), Fågelperspektiv på rättsordningen: Vänbok till Staffan Westerlund, Iustus Förlag, 2002.Google Scholar

Michanek, G., ‘Chapter 7: Sweden’, in Sadeleer, N. (ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches form the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, Earthscan, 2007.Google Scholar

Miles, T. J. and Sunstein, C. R., ‘The Real World of Arbitrariness Review’, John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 368, November 2007.

Miljömål: Environmental Objectives Portal, Summary of environmental policy goals. Available at: www.miljomal.nu (accessed 1 March 2010).

Miljøstyrelsen, Vedrørende Dithane DG, 9 June 1993 (available from the author).

Miller, M. L. Esq., ‘Pesticides’, in Sullivan, T. F. P., Environmental Law Handbook, Government Institutes, 2003.Google Scholar

Montemarano, A., ‘The Delaney Paradox Resurfaces: Regulating Pesticides as Food Additives Under Federal Law’, Rutgers L.J., 25 (1993/1994).Google Scholar

Mooney, C., The Republican War on Science, Basic Books, 2005.Google Scholar

Morris, J., Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.Google Scholar

Moss, D. A., When All Else Fails: Government as the Ultimate Risk Manager, Harvard University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Nash, J. R., ‘Standing and the Precautionary Principle’, Colum. L. Rev., 108 (2008).Google Scholar

,National Radiological Protection Board, Report by the Board of NRPB, ‘Mobile Phones and Health’, Doc. of the NRPB, 15:5 (2004).

,National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Academy Press, 1983.Google Scholar

,National Research Council, The New Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Newsweek, , ‘The Battle Over Caution’, Newsweek, 13 December 2003. Available at: www.newsweek.com/id/60863 (accessed 1 March 2010).

Nilsson, A., Att byta ut kemikalier, Nerenius och Santerus, 1997.Google Scholar

Nilsson, A., ‘The Precautionary Principle in Swedish Chemicals Law and Policy’, in Sadeleer, N., Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, Earthscan, 2007.Google Scholar

Nilsson, R., ‘Science and Politics in the Regulation of Chemicals in Sweden’, in Gough, M. (ed.), Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking, Hoover Institutions Press, 2003.Google Scholar

O'Brien, M., Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment, MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar

O'Riordan, C. and Jordan, A., The History and Contemporary Significance of the Precautionary Principle, in Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, Earthscan, 1994.Google Scholar

,Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Council Recommendation C(90)164 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, 31 January 1991.

Pak, M., ‘Note & Comment: An IQ Test for Federal Agencies? Judicial Review of the Information and Quality Act Under the APA’, Wash. L. Rev., 80 (2005).Google Scholar

Palmeter, D., ‘The WTO Standard of Review in Health and Safety’, in Bermann, G. A. and Mavroidis, P. C., Trade and Human Health and Safety, Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Patterson, A., Risk Regulation and Scientific Expertise in the United Kingdom: The Precautionary Principle in Public Policy, Mellen Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Pauwelyn, J., ‘The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures As Applied in the First Three SPS Disputes’, JIEL, 2:4 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pauwelyn, J., ‘The Use of Experts in WTO Dispute Settlement’, ICLQ, 51 (2002), 328–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pauwelyn, J., ‘Expert Advice in WTO Dispute Settlement’, in Bermann, G. A. and Mavroidis, P. C., Trade and Human Health and Safety, Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Peng, J.et al., ‘The Herbicide Paraquat Induces Dopaminergic Nigral Paoptosis through Sustained Activation of the JNK Pathway’, J. Bio. Chem., 279:31 (2004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pescatore, P., ‘Some critical remarks on the “Single European Act”’, CMLRev., 24 (1987).Google Scholar

Prevost, D., ‘Opening Pandora's Box: The Panel's Findings in the EC-Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products Dispute’, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 34:1 (2007), 73–8.Google Scholar

Raul, A. C. and Dwyer, J. Z., ‘Science in the Regulatory Process: “Regulatory Daubert”: A Proposal to Enhance Judicial Review of Agency Science by Incorporating Daubert Principles into Administrative Law’, Law & Contemp. Prob., 667 (2003).Google Scholar

,Regeringskansliet. Official English Translations of the Environmental Code. Available at: www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/13/48/385ef12a.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

,Regeringskansliet The Swedish Judicial System – A Brief Presentation, published by the Swedish Ministry of Justice, available at: www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/01/62/79/023155e4.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Renda, A., Impact Assessment in the EU: State of the Art and the Art of the State, Center for European Policy Studies, 2006.Google Scholar

Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O.. ‘Risk Perception Research – An Introduction’, in Renn, O. and Rohrman, B., Cross-cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies, Kluwer, 2000.Google Scholar

Rotmans, J. and Asselt, M. B. A., ‘Uncertainty Management in Integrated Assessment Modeling: Towards a Pluralistic Approach’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 69:2 (2001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

,The Royal Society, Risk: Analysis, Perception, Management, The Royal Society 1992.Google Scholar

Rozin, P., ‘Technological Stigma: Some Perspectives from the Study of Contagion’, in Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Kunverther, H.. (eds.), Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology, Earthscan, 2001.Google Scholar

Ruessmann, L. A., ‘Reflections on the WTO Doha Ministerial Conference: Putting the Precautionary Principle in its Place: Parameters for the Proper Application of a Precautionary Approach and the Implications for Developing Countries in Light of the Doha WTO Ministerial’, Am. U. Int'l L. Rev., 17 (2002), 925–6.Google Scholar

Sadeleer, N., Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules, Oxford University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sandin, P., ‘Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle’, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sandin, P., ‘A Paradox Out of Context: Harris and Holm on the Precautionary Principle’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sandin, P., Peterson, M., Hansson, S.-O., Rudén, C., and Juthe, A., ‘Five Charges Against the Precautionary Principle’, Journal of Risk Research, 5:4 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schierow, L-J., ‘Environmental Risk and Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Review of Proposed Legislative Mandates, 1993–1998’, CRS Report for Congress, 22 January 1999.

,Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN), Precautionary Principle FAQs. Available at: www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html (accessed 1 March 2010).

,Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition (SCAN), Opinion on the immediate and longer-term risk to the value of Streptogramins in Human Medicine posed by the use of Virginiamycin as an animal growth promoter of 10 July 1998.

Scott, J., ‘The European Regulation of GMOs and the WTO’, Colum. J. Eur. L., 9 (2003).Google Scholar

Scott, J., The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Scott, J., ‘Of Kith and Kine (and Crustaceans): Trade and Environment in the EU and WTO’, available at: www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/99/990307.html (accessed 1 March 2010).

Scott, J. and Vos, E., ‘The Juridification of Uncertainty: Observations on the Ambivalence of the Precautionary Principle within the EU and the WTO’, in Joerges, Ch. and Dehousse, R., , R. (eds.), Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market, Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Sedman, R. M. and Hadley, P. W., ‘Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Mending the Schism’, Risk – Issues in Health & Safety, 3 (1992).Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. and Glicksman, R. L., ‘Congress, The Supreme Court and the Quiet Revolution in Administrative Law’, Duke L. J., 819 (1988), 819–20.Google Scholar

Shrader-Frechette, K., ‘Scientific Method, Anti-Foundationalism and Public Decision’, in Löfstedt, E. and Frewer, L. (eds.), The Earthscan Reader in Risk and Modern Society, Earthscan, 1998.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., ‘Perceptions of Risk’, Science, 236:4799 (1987), 280–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slovic, P., ‘Informing and Educating the Public about Risk’, in Slovic, P., The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, 2000.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., ‘Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy’, in Slovic, P., The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, 2000.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, 2000.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., Fischoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S., ‘Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk’, in Slovic, P., The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, 2000.Google Scholar

Slovic, P., Fischoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S., ‘Rating the Risks’, in Slovic, P., The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, 2000.Google Scholar

Starr, C., ‘Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk’, Science, 165 (1969).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stirling, A. ‘On Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk’. An Esto Project, Prepared for the European Commission – JRC Institute Prospective Technological Studies Seville, May 1999 (available from author).

,Strategy Unit Report, ‘Risk: Improving Government's Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty’, November 2002, pp. 74–92. Available at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/su%20risk%20summary.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Sunstein, C., After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State, Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C., ‘The Cost-Benefit State’, Chicago Working Paper in Law & Economics, No. 039, 05/1996, Available at: www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/39.sunstein.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).Google Scholar

Sunstein, C., ‘Cost/benefit Default Principles’, Chicago Working Paper in Law and Economics, No. 104, 3/6/01, p. 15. Available at: www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/104.CRS_.Default.REVISED.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Sunstein, C., ‘Health-Health Tradeoffs’, U. Chi. L. Rev., 63 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sunstein, C., Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment, Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C., The Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sunstein, C., ‘On the Divergent American Reactions to Terrorism and Climate Change’, Colum. L. Rev., 107 (2007).Google Scholar

Svärd, S. O. and Rahm, T., Prövning enligt miljöskyddslagen, Gebers Förlag, 1975.Google Scholar

,Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (EU Legal Secretariat), Letter To the Registrar at the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 26 February 2004 (available from the author).

Thiruchelvam, M.et al., ‘The Nigrostriatal Dopaminergic System as a Preferential Target of Repeated Exposures to Combined Paraquat and Maneb: Implications for Parkinson's Disease’, The Journal of Neuroscience, 20:24 (2000).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Trouwborst, A. ‘Overexpression of Superoxide Dismute or Glutathione Peroxidase Protects against the Paraquat + Maneb-induced Parkinson Disease Phenotype’, J. Biol. Chem., 280:23 (2005).Google Scholar

Thornton, J. and Beckwith, S., Environmental Law, Sweet & Maxwell, 2004.Google Scholar

Tickner, J and Raffensberger, C., ‘The Precautionary Principle in Action: A Handbook’, Science and Environmental Health Network, 13. Available at: www.mindfully.org/Precaution/Precaution-In-Action-Handbook.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Tinari, N., ‘Cell Phone Towers in Residential Areas: Did Congress Let the Pig in the Parlor with the Telecommunication Act of 1996?’, Temp. L. Rev., 73 (2000).Google Scholar

Tengs, T. O., Adams, M. E., Pliskin, J. S., Safran, D. G., Siegel, J. E., Weinstein, M. C. and Graham, J. D., ‘Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness’, Risk Analysis 13 (1995).Google Scholar

Trouwborst, A.Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law, Aspen Publishers, 2002.Google Scholar

Trouwborst, A. ‘The Precautionary Principle in General International Law: Combating the Babylonian Confusion’, RECIEL, 16:2 (2007).Google Scholar

Trouwborst, A. ‘Prevention, Precaution, Logic and Law: The Relationship Between the Precautionary Principle and the Preventative Principle in International Law and Associated Questions’, Erasmus Law Review, 2:2 (2009), 106–27.Google Scholar

,United States Environmental Protection Agency, ‘An Evaluation of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices’, Staff Paper Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by members of the Risk Assessment Task Force, EPA/100/B-04/001.

,United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/260R-02–008. Available at www.epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010)

,United States Environmental Protection Agency, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, Special Message from the President to the Congress about Reorganization Plans to Establish the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 9 July 1970. Available at: www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/reorg.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).

,The Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Public Participation Policy, 1981.

,The Environmental Protection Agency, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems, February 1987. Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/owrccatalog.nsf/9da204a4b4406ef885256ae0007a79c7/d8555a5ca86d824a85256b06007256d1!OpenDocument (accessed 1 March 2010).

,The Environmental Protection Agency, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, September 1990. Executive summary available at www.epa.gov/history/topics/risk/01.htm (accessed 1 March 2010).

,United States Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Characterization Handbook, December 2000, available at www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

,The Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000’, Environmental Issue Report No. 22, 2002. Available at: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en (accessed 1 March 2010).

,The Environmental Protection Agency, Public Involvement Policy of the Environmental Protection Agency, May 2003. p. 1 and Appendix 1. Available at: www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/policy2003.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

,The Environmental Protection Agency, ‘An Evaluation of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices’, Staff Paper Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency by members of the Risk Assessment Task Force, March 2004, available at: www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

,The Environmental Protection Agency, ‘Changes Needed to Improve Public Confidence in EPA's Implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act’, Report No. 2006-P-00003, 19 October 2005.

,United States General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues, Report to Congressional Requesters, AO-01–545, 2001 Available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d01545.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

,United States General Accounting Office, OMB's Role in Reviews of Agency's Draft Rules and the Transparency of Those Reviews, GAO-03–929, 2003. Available at: www.gao.gov/new.items/d03929.pdf (accessed 1 March 2010).

Viscusi, K., Rational Risk Policy, Oxford University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Viscusi, K., ‘Monetizing the Benefits of Risk and Environmental Regulation’, Fordham Urb. L. J., 33 (2006), 1003–4.Google Scholar

Vogel, D., ‘Ships Passing in the Night: GMOs and the Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe and the United States’, Working Paper No 2001/16, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute, 2001.

Moltke, K., ‘The Vorsorgeprinzip in West German Environmental Policy’, in Royal Commission On Environmental Pollution, Twelfth Report, HMSO 1988.Google Scholar

Vos, E., ‘EU Food Safety Regulation in the Aftermath of the BSE Crisis’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 23 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vos, E., ‘Antibiotics, the Precautionary Principle and the Court of First Instance’, Maastricht Journal, 11:2 (2004).Google Scholar

Wahlström, B. ‘The Precautionary Approach to Chemicals Management: A Swedish Perspective’, in Raffensperger, C. and Tickner, J. (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, Island Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Walker, W. E., Harremoes, P., Rotman, J., Sluijs, J. P., Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., and Krauss, M. P. Krayer von, ‘Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support’, Integrated Assessment, 4:1 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walker, W. E., Harremoes, P., Rotman, J., Sluijs, J. P., Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., Wall Street Journal, ‘Jolly Green Justices’, Editorial, 3 April 2007, p. A14.Google Scholar

Weale, A., ‘Ecological Modernisation and the Integration of European Environmental Policy’, in Lifferink, J. D., European Integration and Environmental Policy, Belhaven Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Henderson and Parson, 1947.Google Scholar

Weiss, R., ‘Law is Nemesis of Regulation’, Washington Post, 16 August 2004, p. A01Google Scholar

Westerlund, S., Lag om kemiska produkter: Kommentar, C. E. Fritzes Förlag, 1985.Google Scholar

Westerlund, S., Miljöskyddslagen: En analytisk lagkommentar, Åmyra Förlag, 1990.Google Scholar

Wiener, J. ‘Precaution in a Multi-Risk World’, Duke Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 23, December 2001.

Wiener, J. and Rogers, M. D., ‘Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe’, Journal of Risk Research, 5:4 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wildawsky, A. ‘Trial and Error versus Trial Without Error’, in Morris, J., Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.Google Scholar

Winickoff, D.et al., ‘Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law’, Yale J. Int'l Law, 30 (2005).Google Scholar

Wood, S. G., Wood, S. Q. and Wood, R. A., ‘The Precautionary Principle? An American Assessment’, in Paques, M., Le Principe de precaution en droit administratif/Precautionary Principle and Administrative Law, National and International Reports, International Academy of Comparative Law, Bruylant, 2007.Google Scholar

Zander, J., ‘The Green Guarantee in Article 95 of the EC Treaty: Two Recent Cases’, Journal of Environmental Law, 16:1 (2004).Google Scholar

Zwanenberg, P. and Millstone, E., ‘Mad Cow Disease’ 1980s–2000: How Reassurances Undermined Precaution', in Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000, Environmental Issue Report No. 22, 2002. Available at: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/ (accessed 1 March 2010).