Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-l48q4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T03:00:42.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part III - Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2017

Ademola A. Adenle
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
E. Jane Morris
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Denis J. Murphy
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
Risk Analysis and Governance
, pp. 151 - 212
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage (translated from the German Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1986).Google Scholar
Bernstein, P. (1996). Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Brunk, C. et al. (1991). Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the Alachlor Controversy. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
CBAC (2002). Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Foods in Canada: A Report to the Government of Canada. Ottawa: Government of Canada. [Online]. Available from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/C2-589-2001E.pdfGoogle Scholar
CEC (2000). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. COM 2000/0001. [Online]. Available from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0001Google Scholar
Cranor, C. (1997). The normative nature of risk assessment: features and possibilities. RISK: Health, Safety & Environment Journal 8, 123.Google Scholar
Davies, L. (2002). Technical cooperation and the international coordination of biotechnology inventions. Journal of Law and Society 29(1), 137162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA (2007). Definition and Description of ‘Emerging Risks’ Within the EFSA's Mandate. EFSA/SC/415 Final. [Online]. Available from www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/escoemriskdefinition.pdfGoogle Scholar
EPA (2009). Environmental Protection Agency Website. [Online]. Available from www.epa.gov/Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science 17(2), 195230.Google Scholar
Lassoued, R. et al. (2016). Anchoring effects in regulatory decisions. Working paper. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
NRC (1983). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
NRC (1994). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
NRC (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
OECD (2005). An Introduction to the Biosafety Consensus Documents of OECD's Working Group for Harmonization in Biotechnology. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. W. B. (2007). Governing Transformative Technological Innovation: Who's in Charge? Oxford: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Phillips, P. W. B. et al., eds. (2006). Governing Risk in the 21st Century: Lessons from the World of Biotechnology. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Sandman, P. (1994). Mass media and environmental risk: seven principles. Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment 5, 251.Google Scholar
Waithaka, M. et al. (2015). Progress and challenges for implementation of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa policy on biotechnology and biosafety. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 3, 109. [Online]. Available from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4519696/Google Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. [Online]. Available at http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdfGoogle Scholar

References

Abbott, A. (2015). Europe's genetically edited plants stuck in legal limbo. Nature 528, 319320.Google Scholar
Adenle, A. A. (2014). Stakeholders’ perceptions of GM technology in West Africa: assessing the responses of policymakers and scientists in Ghana and Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 241263.Google Scholar
Arts, B. and Mack, S. (2003). Environmental NGOs and the Biosafety Protocol: a case study on political influence. European Environment 13, 1933.Google Scholar
Cooney, R. and Dickson, B. (2005). Precautionary principle, precautionary practice: lessons and insights. In Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk, Uncertainty and Practice in Conservation and Sustainable Use, ed. Cooney, R. and Dickson, B.. London: Earthscan, Chapter 18.Google Scholar
Dubock, A. (2014). The politics of Golden Rice. GM Crops & Food 5, 210222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO/WHO (2001). Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a joint FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/WHO (World Health Organization) expert consultation on allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology. [Online]. Available from ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/allergygm.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, S. and Gray, T. (2008). The World Trade Organization's report on the EU's moratorium on biotech products: the wisdom of the US challenge to the EU in the WTO. Global Environmental Politics 8(1), 3352.Google Scholar
NASEM (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. (2006). Precaution: principles and practice in Australian environmental and natural resource management. Productivity Commission. Presidential Address, 50th Annual Australian Agricultural and Resource Economic Society Conference, Manly, New South Wales.Google Scholar
Potrykus, I. and Ammann, K. (2010). Proceedings of a Study Week of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. New Biotechnology 27(5), 445717.Google Scholar
PRRI (2013). The French deal: GM technology traded off for nuclear energy. [Online]. Available from www.prri.net/french-deal-gmos/Google Scholar
UNDP (2001). The Human Development Report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press. [Online]. Available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2001Google Scholar
WHO (2016). Micronutrient deficiencies. [Online]. Available from www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/Google Scholar
Wolt, J. D. et al. (2015). The regulatory status of genome edited crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal 14(2), 510518.Google Scholar

References

Adenle, A. A. (2011a). Global capture of crop biotechnology in developing world over a decade. Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology 9(2), 8395.Google Scholar
Adenle, A. A. (2011b). Response to issues on GM agriculture in Africa: are transgenic crops safe? BMC Research Notes 4, 388.Google Scholar
Adenle, A. A. (2012). Are transgenic crops safe? GM agriculture in Africa. United Nations University, Japan. [Online]. Available from http://unu.edu/publications/articles/are-transgenic-crops-safe-gm-agriculture-in-africa.htmlGoogle Scholar
Adenle, A. A. et al. (2013). Status of development, regulation and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: views and positions of stakeholder groups. Food Policy 43, 159166.Google Scholar
Adler, J. H. (2000). Cartagena Protocol: biosafe or bio-sorry? Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 761, 772.Google Scholar
Ali, A. and Abdulai, A. (2010). The adoption of genetically modified cotton and poverty reduction in Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(1), 175192.Google Scholar
Ammann, K. (2014). Genomic misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation. New Biotechnology 31(1), 117. [Online]. Available from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684919Google Scholar
Azadi, H. and Ho, P. (2010). Genetically modified and organic crops in developing countries: a review of options for food security. Biotechnology Advances 28(1), 160168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azadi, H. et al. (2015). Genetically modified crops: towards agricultural growth, agricultural development or agricultural sustainability? Food Reviews International 31(3), 195221.Google Scholar
Bazuin, S. et al. (2011). Application of GM crops in Sub-Saharan Africa: lessons learned from Green Revolution. Biotechnology Advances 29, 908912.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. (2013). Brazil Says ‘Yes’ to Genetically Modified Foods. Mexico Says ‘No’. [Online]. Available from www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013--10--30/brazil-says-yes-to-genetically-modified-foods-dot-mexico-says-noGoogle Scholar
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. (2016). GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2014. PG Economics Ltd, UK. [Online]. Available from www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2016globalimpactstudymay2016.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brown-Lima, C. et al. (2012). An overview of the Brazil–China soybean trade and its strategic implications for conservation. [Online]. Available from www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/southamerica/brazil/explore/brazil-china-soybean-trade.pdfGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J. E. (2011). Impact of GM crops on biodiversity. GM Crops 1, 723.Google Scholar
European Union Center of North Carolina (2007). Policy Area: GMOs. [Online]. Available from http://europe.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Brief0705-GMOs.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAO (2005). Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: how to effectively involve rural people. Summary Document to Conference 12 of the FAO Biotechnology Forum. 17 January to 13 February 2005, Rome, Italy. [Online]. Available from www.fao.org/biotech/logs/C12/summary.htmGoogle Scholar
Glover, D. (2003). GMOs and the Politics of International Trade. Democratising Biotechnology. Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries Briefing Series. Briefing 5. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
Glowka, L. (2003). Law and modern biotechnology: selected issues of relevance to food and agriculture. FAO Legislative Study 78. [Online]. Available from www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4839E/Y4839E00.HTMGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, X. (2009). The politics of genetically modified organisms: global rules, local needs. The University of Texas at Austin. SIT Spring class 2009. International Studies Organizations and Social Justice, 39 pp.Google Scholar
Gouse, M. (2012). GM maize as subsistence crop: the South African smallholder experience. AgBioForum 15(2), 163174. [Online]. Available from www.agbioforum.org/v15n2/v15n2a05-gouse.htmGoogle Scholar
Gouse, M. et al. (2006). Output and labour effects of GM maize and minimum tillage in a communal area of KwaZulu Natal. Development Perspectives 2(2), 192207.Google Scholar
Gruère, G. P. (2006). An analysis of trade related international regulations of genetically modified food and their effects on developing countries. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Environment and Production Technology Division (EPT) Discussion Paper 147. Washington, D.C., 78 pp.Google Scholar
Gruère, G. and Sengupta, D. (2009). Biosafety decisions and perceived commercial risks. The role of GM-free private standards. Environment and Production Technology Division, The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Discussion Paper 00847. [Online]. Available from www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00847.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hanrahan, C. E. (2010). Agricultural Biotechnology: The U.S.–EU Dispute. Congressional Research Service Reports. Paper 69. [Online]. Available from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/69Google Scholar
ISHRW (2014). International Weed Science. [Online]. Available from www.weedscience.orgGoogle Scholar
James, C. (2014). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014. ISAAA Brief No. 49. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA.Google Scholar
James, C. (2015). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2015. ISAAA Brief 50–2015: Executive Summary. Ithaca, NY: ISAA.Google Scholar
Jonquieres, G. et al. (2003). Sowing discord: after Iraq, the US and Europe head for a showdown over genetically modified crops. Financial Times 14 May 2003, p. 21.Google Scholar
Josling, T. (2015). A review of WTO rules and GMO trade. Biotechnology 9(3). [Online]. Available from www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/a-review-of-wto-rules-and-gmo-tradeGoogle Scholar
Klümper, W. and Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9(11), e111629, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629.Google Scholar
Marris, C. (2004). Issues concerning public awareness and attitudes towards genetically modified bananas and tropical fruits. Third Session of the Intergovernmental Group on Bananas and Tropical Fruits, Puerto de la Cruz, Spain, 22–26 March 2004. [Online]. Available from ftp://193.43.36.93/unfao/bodies/ccp/ba-tf/04/j0803e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Meijer, E. and Stewart, R. (2004). The GM cold war: how developing countries can go from being dominos to being players. RECIEL 13(3), 247262.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2003). Chapter 5 – Governance in the use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. A Follow-up Discussion Paper, pp. 63–82. [Online]. Available from www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/images/cibiogem/comunicacion/publicaciones/Nuffield_Council-GMOs-for-dev-countries.pdfGoogle Scholar
Paarlberg, R. (2000). Agrobiotechnology choices in developing countries. International Journal of Biotechnology 2(1–3), 167168.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. A. and Josling, T. (2002). Regulating biotechnology: comparing EU and US approaches. European Policy Papers #8. [Online]. Available from http://aei.pitt.edu/28/1/TransatlanticBiotech.pdfGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. J. and White, P. A. (2010). The EU–US Dispute over Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms, Plants, Feeds, and Foods. International Dimensions of Ethics Education in Science and Engineering. [Online]. Available from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=edethicsinscienceGoogle Scholar
Potrykus, I. (2010). Lessons from the ‘Humanitarian Golden Rice’ project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products. New Biotechnology 27, 466472.Google Scholar
Qaim, M. and Kouser, S. (2013). Genetically modified crops and food security. PLoS ONE 8(6), e64879, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064879.Google Scholar
Qaim, M., and Zilberman, D. (2003). Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science 299, 900902.Google Scholar
Reddy, P. B. et al. (2013). GM technology can solve the world food crisis. Science Secure Journal of Biotechnology 2(2), 3640.Google Scholar
Salmon, D. G. (2015). Agricultural biotechnology annual. Global Agricultural Information Network. [Online]. Available from http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Paris_EU-28_7-23-2015.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tabashnik, B. E. et al. (2013). Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres. Nature Biotechnology 31(6), 510521. [Online]. Available from www.ask-force.org/web/Bt1/Tabashnik-Insect-Resistance-First-Billion-Acres-2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tabashnik, B. E. et al. (2015). Dual mode of action of Bt proteins: protoxin efficacy against resistant insects. Nature Scientific Reports 5, 15107. [Online]. Available from www.ask-force.org/web/Bt1/Tabashnik-Dual-mode-action-Bt-proteins-2015.pdfGoogle Scholar
Walia, A. (2015). Here's why 19 countries in Europe just completely banned genetically modified crops. [Online]. Available from www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/07/heres-why-19-countries-in-europe-just-completely-banned-genetically-modified-crops/Google Scholar
Wolson, R. A. (2007). Assessing the prospects for the adoption of biofortified crops in South Africa. AgBioForum 10, 184191. [Online]. Available from www.agbioforum.org/v10n3/v10n3a08-wolson.htmGoogle Scholar
Young, A. R. (2003). Political transfer and ‘trading up’? Transatlantic trade in genetically modified food and US politics. World Politics 55(4), 457484.Google Scholar

References

Acunzo, M. et al. (2014). Communication for Rural Development Sourcebook. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Arantes, O. et al. (2011). Desenvolvimento de comunicação estratégica sobre biossegurança de plantas geneticamente modificadas – o caso do projeto LAC – Biosafety no Brasil. Aguariúna, SP: Embrapa Meio Ambiente, p. 33.Google Scholar
Australian Government (2013). The Risk Analysis Framework 2013. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.Google Scholar
Blancke, S. et al. (2015). Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science 20(7), 414418.Google Scholar
Brandenberg, O. et al. (2011). Biosafety Resource Book (5 volumes). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Bremer, S. et al. (2015). Responsible techno-innovation in aquaculture: employing ethical engagement to explore attitudes to GM salmon in Northern Europe. Aquaculture 437, 370381.Google Scholar
Bubela, T. et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology 27(6), 514518.Google Scholar
CAC (2003). Report of the Twenty-Sixth Session. Rome. 30 June–7 July 2003. Appendix IV. Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
CAC (2008). Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual. Eighteenth edition. Rome. Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
CAC (2011). Working principles for risk analysis for application in the framework of the Codex Alimentarius. In Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual. Twentieth edition. Rome: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme.Google Scholar
Canavari, M. and Nayga, R. (2009). On consumers’ willingness to purchase nutritionally enhanced genetically modified food. Applied Economics 41(1), 125137.Google Scholar
Carroll, L. (1871). Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Casanoves, M. et al. (2015). Knowledge and attitudes towards biotechnology of elementary education preservice teachers: the first Spanish experience. International Journal of Science Education 37(17), 29232941.Google Scholar
Chee, Y. L. and Lim, L. L. (2005). Public Participation in the Implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, Third World Network Biosafety Briefing. [Online]. Available from www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/1410148856539c28e5.pdfGoogle Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. [Online]. Available from www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cordo, A. (2008). Nuevos métodos de comunicación: ciencia a la mexicana. [Online]. Available from www.surysur.net/nuevos-metodos-de-comunicacion-ciencia-a-la-mexicana/Google Scholar
EC (2012). Responsible Research and Innovation: Europe's Ability Responds to Societal Challenges. [Online]. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
EC (2013). Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the European Union; Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
FAO (2001). Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
FAO (2004). Participation: Sharing Our Resources. Informal Working Group on Participatory Approaches and Methods to Support Sustainable Livelihoods and Food Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
FAO (2008). GM Food Safety Assessment: Tools for Trainers. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
FAO (2011). Agricultural Biotechnologies in Developing Countries: Options and Opportunities in Crops, Forestry, Livestock, Fisheries and Agro-industry to Face the Challenges of Food Insecurity and Climate Change (ABDC-10), 2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (1623). The Assayer, translated by Drake, S. and O'Malley, C. D.. In The Controversy on the Comets of 1618 (1960). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. et al. (2011). The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology 29(2), 113114.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature 402 (Suppl.), C81C84.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularisation: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20, 519539.Google Scholar
Kazana, V. et al. (2015). Public attitudes towards the use of transgenic forest trees: a cross-country pilot survey. [Online]. www.sisef.it/iforest/contents?id=ifor1441-008Google Scholar
Lucht, J. M. (2015). Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses 7(8), 42544281.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Carro-Ripalda, S., eds. (2016). Governing Agricultural Sustainability: Global Lessons from GM Crops. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
National Science Board (2004). Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding. In Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Chapter 7.Google Scholar
Nielsen, A. P. et al. (2004). Involving the public – participatory methods and democratic ideals. Global Bioethics 17, 191201.Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. C. and Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96(10), 17671778.Google Scholar
Oughton, D. (2005). The promises and pitfalls of participation. In Biotechnology-Ethics. An Introduction, ed. Landerweerd, L. et al. Florence: Angelo Pontecorboli Editore, pp. 305313.Google Scholar
Owen, R. et al. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6), 751760.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2015). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. [Online]. Available from www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. and Sonnino, A. (2006). Results from the FAO Biotechnology Forum: Background and Dialogue on Selected Issues. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. and Sonnino, A. (2011). Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries and their possible contribution to food security. Journal of Biotechnology 156, 356363.Google Scholar
Scholderer, J. and Frewer, L. J. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy 2, 125157.Google Scholar
Sensi, A. et al. (2009). Building Biosafety Capacities: FAO's Experience and Outlook. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Sharry, S. (2013). Communicating biosafety – a new approach for agrobiotechnology adoption. Agrotechnology 2, e107.Google Scholar
Sinemus, K. and Egelhofer, M. (2007). Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: will it change public opinion? Biotechnology Journal 2, 10411146.Google Scholar
Sorgo, A. et al. (2011). Knowledge about and acceptance of genetically modified organisms among pre-service teachers: a comparative study of Turkey and Slovenia. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 14(4). [Online]. Available from www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-34582011000400005Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J. et al. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9), 15681580.Google Scholar
Traynor, P. et al. (2007). Strategic approaches to informing the public about biotechnology in Latin America. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 10(2), 169177.Google Scholar
UNECE (2003). Guidelines on access to information, public participation and access to justice with respect to genetically modified organisms. MP.PP/2003/3, KIEV.CONF/2003/INF/7.Google Scholar
UNECE (2005). Almaty Declaration. Report of the Second Meeting of the Parties. Almaty, Kazakhstan.Google Scholar
UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit (2006). A comparative analysis of experiences and lessons from the UNEP-GEF biosafety projects. [Online]. Available from www.unep.ch/biosafety/old_site/development/devdocuments/UNEPGEFBiosafety_comp_analysisDec2006.pdfGoogle Scholar
UNESCO (2006). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. [Online]. Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdfGoogle Scholar
Whitty, C. J. M. et al. (2013) Africa and Asia need a rational debate on GM crops. Nature 497, 3133.Google Scholar

References

Aerni, P. et al. (2015). Agricultural biotechnology and public attitudes: an attempt to explain the mismatch between experience and perception. In Genetically Modified Organisms in Food, ed. Watson, R. R. and Preedy, V. R.. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 149156.Google Scholar
Aerni, P. et al. (2016). The role of biotechnology in combating climate change: a question of politics? Science and Public Policy 43, 1328.Google Scholar
Botelho, D. and Kurtz, H. (2008). The introduction of genetically modified food in the United States and the United Kingdom: a news analysis. The Social Science Journal 45, 1327.Google Scholar
Cook, G. (2004). Genetically Modified Language: The Discourse of Arguments for GM Crops and Food. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Costa-Font, M. et al. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33, 99111.Google Scholar
Curtis, K. et al. (2008). Differences in global risk perceptions of biotechnology and the political economy of the media. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 8(1–2), 7789.Google Scholar
DeRosier, C. et al. (2015). A comparative analysis of media reporting of perceived risks and benefits of genetically modified crops and foods in Kenyan and international newspapers. Public Understanding of Science 24(5), 563581.Google Scholar
EurActive (2016a). Decision on new plant breeding techniques further delayed. 31 March 2016.Google Scholar
EurActive (2016b). Trade body: don't lump ‘new plant breeding techniques’ in with GMOs. 3 May 2016.Google Scholar
Frewer, L. J. et al. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: the mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis 23(6), 11171133.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. and Bauer, M. W. (2001). Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. et al. (1999). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285, 384388.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. et al. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 24(1), 185194.Google Scholar
Harrop, M. 1987. Voters and the media. In The Media in British Politics, ed. Seaton, J and Pimlott, B. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Holmgreen, L. L. and Vestergaard, T. (2009). Evaluation and audience acceptance in biotech news texts. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 586601.Google Scholar
Jones, H. D. (2015). Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nature Plants, 8 January 2015. [Online]. Available from www.nature.com/articles/nplants201411Google Scholar
Kim, R. et al. (2015). Risk communication for GM foods in South Korea: the role of media and government. International Food Research Journal 22(5), 18781882.Google Scholar
Lore, T. et al. (2013). A framing analysis of newspaper coverage of genetically modified crops in Kenya. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information 14(2), 132150.Google Scholar
Lusser, M. et al. (2012). Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nature Biotechnology 30(3), 231239.Google Scholar
McCluskey, J. J. and Swinnen, J. F. M. (2004). Political economy of the media and consumer perceptions of biotechnology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(5), 12301237.Google Scholar
McCluskey, J. et al. (2016). Media coverage, public perceptions, and consumer behavior: insights from new food technologies. Annual Review of Resource Economics 8, 467486.Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2001). A Comparison of U.S. Media Coverage of Biotechnology with Public Perceptions of Genetic Engineering 1995–1999. International Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 1–3 February, 2001.Google Scholar
Petts, J. et al. (2001). Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public. Contract Research Report 329/2001. Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
Strömberg, D. (2001). Mass media and public policy. European Economic Review 45, 652663.Google Scholar
Strömberg, D. (2004). Mass media competition, political competition, and public policy. Review of Economic Studies 71, 265284.Google Scholar
Ventura, V. et al. (2016). How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy. Public Understanding of Science, 1 April 2016.Google Scholar
Vigani, M. and Olper, A. (2013). GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy 43, 3243.Google Scholar
Vigani, M. and Olper, A. (2014). GM-free private standards, public regulation of GM products and mass media. Environment and Development Economics 19(6), 743768.Google Scholar
Vigani, M. and Olper, A. (2015). Patterns and determinants of GMO regulations: an overview of recent evidence. AgBioForum 18(1), article 6.Google Scholar
Vilella-Vila, M. and Costa-Font, J. (2008). Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 20952106.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×