Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2015 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

2. The Role of Risk Perception and Political Culture: A Comparative Study of Regulating Genetically Modified Food

verfasst von : Tony E. Wohlers

Erschienen in: Risk and Cognition

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Policymakers in industrialized countries have responded differently to the perceived opportunities and threats regarding the genetic modification of agricultural food production. In particular, a biotechnology policy divide has emerged since the 1990s between North America and some countries in South America on the one hand and many countries in the European Union. This study asks whether national differences in political culture, as expressed through different levels of tolerance for uncertainty and risk affect the formulation of protective regulatory policy in the area of genetically modified food. To answer this question, the analysis applies elements of the cultural model developed by Hofstede and uses a modified version of the Margolis Risk Matrix to assess risk tolerance in regards to the regulation of genetically modified food in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and the European Union.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction
Nächstes Kapitel The Importance of Risk Communication as an Integral Part of Risk Management in the Republic of Serbia
Literatur
1.
Reiss, M., & Straughan, R. (1996). Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Agence France Presse. (2012, February 7). Brazil to lead world in biotech crops. Sao Paulo: Agence France Presse.
3.
Shore, R. (2012, February 11). Biotech agriculture expanding globally: New battle lines are emerging as industry shift from commodity crops to whole foods. The Vancouver Sun.
4.
Munro, W. A. & Schurman, R. A. (2008). Sustaining outrage: Cultural capital, strategic location, and motivating sensibilities in the US anti-genetic engineering movement. In W. Wright & G. Middendorf (Eds.), The fight over food. Producers, consumers, and activists challenge the global food system (pp. 145–176). The Pennsylvania State University: Pennsylvania State University Press.
5.
Jasanoff, S. (1995). Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology. Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology (pp. 311–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Dunlop, C. (2000). GMOs and regulatory styles. Environmental Politics, 9(2), 149–155.CrossRef
7.
Gaskell, G. (2001). Troubled waters: The Atlantic divide on biotechnology policy. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996–2000: The years of controversy (pp. 96–115). London: NMSI Trading Ltd.
8.
Isaac, G. E. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology and transatlantic trade: Regulatory barriers to GM crops (p. 211). Cary: CABI Publishing.CrossRef
9.
Katz, P., Macdonald, P., & Mackanzie, G. (2004). The evolving GMO food trade policy debate: Towards a global regulatory regime? In R. E. Evenson & V. Santaniello (Eds.), The regulation of agricultural biotechnology (pp. 25–34). Cambridge: CABI Publishing.CrossRef
10.
Jaffe, G. (2004). Regulating transgenic crops: A comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgenic Research, 13(1), 5–19.CrossRef
11.
Gaudillière, J. P. (2006). Globalization and regulation in the biotech world: The transatlantic debates over cancer genes and genetically modified crops. OSIRIS, 21, 251–272.CrossRef
12.
Sheingate, A. D. (2006). Promotion versus precaution: The evolution of biotechnology policy in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 243–268.CrossRef
13.
Jepson, W. E., Brannstrom, C. & de Souza, R. S. (2005). A case of contested ecological modernization: The governance of genetically modified crops in Brazil. Environment and Planning: Government and Policy, 23(2), 295–310.
14.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.
15.
Margolis, H. (1996). Dealing with risk: Why the public and experts disagree on environmental issues (pp. 75–78). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Williams, R. M. (1974). American Society. New York: Knopf Williams.
17.
Elazar, D. J. (1984). American federalism: A view from the States. New York: Harper & Row.
18.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton: Princeton University.
19.
Deutsch, K. W. (1970). Politics and government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
Swedlow, B. (2002). Toward cultural analysis in policy analysis: Picking up where Aaron Wildavsky left off. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 4(3), 267–285.
21.
Hoppe, R. (2002). Cultures of public policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 4(3), 305–326.
22.
Turner, C. H., & Trompenaars, A. (1993). 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.
23.
Steensma, H. K. (2000). The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 951–973.CrossRef
24.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. H. (2005). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (pp. 167–190). New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
Yniyurt, S., & Townsend, J. (2003). Does culture explain acceptance of new products in a country? An empirical investigation. International Marketing Review, 20(4), 377–397.CrossRef
27.
Rowe, W. D. (1992). Risk analysis: A tool for policy decisions. In M. Waterstone (Ed.), Risk and society: The interaction of science and public policy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28.
Funke, O. (1985). Biopolitics and public policy: Controlling biotechnology. PS: Political Science and Politics, 18(1), 69–77.CrossRefMathSciNet
29.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
30.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton and Sons.
31.
Eden, C., & Radford, J. (1990). Tackling strategic problems. Newbury Park: Sage.
32.
Fransella, F., & Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid technique. London: Academic Press.
33.
Sjöberg, L. (2004). 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, 5, S47–S51.
34.
Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1976). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. Schwing & W. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? (pp. 181–214). New York: Plenum Press.
35.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
36.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decision. Journal of Business, 59, 251–278.CrossRef
37.
Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). New York: Praeger.
38.
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating pubic alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445–481.CrossRef
39.
Anderson, J. E. (1990). Public policymaking (p. 5). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
40.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. (1972). Participation in American politics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
41.
Ripley, R. B., & Franklin, G. A. (1986). Policy implementation and bureaucracy. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
42.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Belmont: Russel Sage.
43.
The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2006). Review of public opinion research. The Mellman Group.
44.
Hallman, W. K. et al. (2004). Americans and GM foods: Knowledge, opinion, and interest in 2004. New Brunswick: Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
45.
Hoban, T. J. (2004). Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology, ESA working paper no. 04–09. Agricultural and Development Economics Division: The Food and Agricultural Organization.
46.
Hoban, T. J. (2002). American consumers’ awareness and acceptance of biotechnology. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
47.
Hoban, T. J. (1999). Consumer acceptance of biotechnology in the United States and Japan. Food Technology, 53, 85–88.
48.
49.
Hoban, T. J. (1997). Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: An international perspective. Nature Biotechnology, 15, 232–234.CrossRef
50.
Hoban, T. J. (1996). Trends in consumer acceptance and awareness of biotechnology. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 27(1), 1–10.
51.
Hoban, T. J. (1990). Agricultural biotechnology: Public attitudes and educational needs. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
52.
Schilling, B. J. et al. (2002). Consumer knowledge of food biotechnology. A descriptive study of US residents. Rutgers University: Food Policy Institute.
53.
Wolf, M. & Domegan, C. (2002). A comparison of consumer attitudes towards GM food in Ireland and the United States: A case study over time. In V. Santaniollo, R. E. Evenson, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Market development for genetically modified foods. (pp. 25–38). New York: CABI Publishing.
54.
Hallman, W. K. & Metcalfe, J. (1994). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology: A survey of New Jersey residents. Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
55.
Hoban, T. J., & Kendall, P. (1992). Consumer attitudes about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and food production. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University.
56.
Decima Research. (2006). Emerging technologies tracking. Canada: Decima Research.
57.
Research, Pollara. (2003). Public opinion research into biotechnology issues in Canada. Toronto: Pollara Research.
58.
Pollara Research & Earnscliffe Research and Communications. (2000). Public opinion research into biotechnology issues. Ottawa: Earnschliffe Research and Communications Pollara Research and Earnscliffe.
59.
Einsiedel, E. F. & Medlock, J. M. (2001). Canada on the gene trail. In G. Gaskell & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996–2000. The years of controversy (pp. 145–156). London: NMSI Trading Ltd.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Massarani, L., & de Castro Moreira, I. (2005). Attitudes towards genetics: A case study among Brazilian high school students. Public Understanding of Science, 14(2), 201–212.CrossRef
64.
Massarani, L., & de Castro Moreira, I. (2006). What do Brazilians think about transgenics. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, & T. C. Nesbitt (Eds.), The public, the media, and agricultural biotechnology (pp. 179–1990). Cambridge: CABI.
65.
Oosterveeer, P. (2007). Global governance of food production and consumption. Issues and challenges (p. 120). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
66.
Food and Drug Administration. (1992). Statement of policy: Foods derived from new plant varieties. Federal Register, 57, 22984–23005.
67.
Lacy, W. B., Busch, L. & Lacy, L. L. (1991). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology. In B. R. Baumgardt & M. A. Martin (Eds.), Agricultural biotechnology. Issues and choices. (pp. 139–161). West Lafayette: Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station.
68.
Hoban, T. J. (1998). International acceptance of agricultural biotechnology. In R. W. F. Hardy & J. B. Segelken (Eds.), Agricultural biotechnology and environmental quality: Gene escape and pest resistance (p. 61). Ithaca: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Report.
69.
Baram, M. (2010). Governance of GM crops and food safety in the United States. In M. Baram & M. Bourrier (Eds.), Governing risk in GM agriculture (pp. 16–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
70.
Ferrara, J. (2001). Paving the way for biotechnology: Federal regulations and industry PR. In B. Tokar (Ed.), Redesigning life? The worldwide challenges to genetic engineering (pp. 297–305). London: Zed Book Ltd.
71.
Toke, D. (2004). The politics of GM food: A comparative study of the UK, USA and EU (pp. 107–157). London: Routledge.
72.
Barbee, M. (2004). Politically incorrect nutrition: Finding reality in the mire of food industry propaganda (p. 70). Ridgefield: Vital Health Publishing.
73.
Harrington, J. C. (2005). The challenge to power. Money, investing, and democracy. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
74.
Pelaez, V. & Schmidt, W. (2004). Social struggles and the regulation of transgenic crops in Brazil. In K. Jansen & S. Vellema (Eds.), Agribusiness and society. Corporate responses to environmentalism, market opportunities and public regulation. (pp. 232–246). London: Zed Books.
75.
Reilly, J. M. (1989, December). Consumer effects of biotechnology. Agriculture Information Bulletin, 581, 1–11.
76.
West, D. M. (2007). Biotechnology policy across national boundaries. The science-industrial complex (pp. 51–60). New York: Palgrave MacMilland.CrossRef
77.
Food and Drug Administration (1993, January/February). Genetically engineered foods: Fears & facts. An interview with FDA’s Jim Maryanski, FDA Consumer.
78.
79.
80.
Food and Drug Administration (1994, May 18). Biotechnology of food, FDA backgrounder BG94-4. Washington DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
81.
Food and Drug Administration (1994, September). First biotech tomato marketed. FDA Consumer Magazine, 3–4.
82.
Hoban, T. J. (1999). Consumer acceptance of biotechnology in the United States and Japan. Food Technology, 53(5), 50–53.
83.
The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2006). Genetically modified crops in the United States.. p. 3.
84.
Zimmerman, L., et al. (1994). Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technology, 48(11), 71–77.
85.
Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., & Lee, E. (2001). The polls—trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 267–281.CrossRef
86.
Winston, M. (2002). Travels in the genetically modified zone (p. 236). USA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
87.
Gaskell, G., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18(September), 935–938.CrossRef
88.
Food and Drug Administration. (1996). Safety assurance of foods derived by modern biotechnology in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
89.
Food and Drug Administration. (1995). FDA’s Policy for foods developed by biotechnology. Washington, DC: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
90.
Bucchini, L., & Goldman, L. R. (2002). Starlink corn: A risk analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(1), 5–13.CrossRef
91.
92.
Food and Drug Administration. (2000, September 26). Statement by Joseph A. Levitt, Esq. Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://​www.​biotech-info.​net/​JAL.​html.
93.
94.
95.
Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Biotechnology consultations on food from GE plant varieties. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://​www.​accessdata.​fda.​gov/​scripts/​fdcc/​?​set=​Biocon.​
96.
Food and Drug Administration. (2004). 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.
97.
Food and Drug Administration. (2006). 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.
98.
Carter, C. A., & Gruère, G. P. (2006). International approval and labeling regulations of genetically modified food in major trading countries, in regulating agricultural Biotechnology. In R. E. Just, J. M. Alston, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Economic and policy (p. 467). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
99.
Food and Drug Administration. (2001). Guidance for industry, voluntary labeling indicating whether foods have or have not been developed using bioengineering. Washington DC: Center for Food and Applied Nutrition.
100.
Food and Drug Administration and US Department of Agriculture. (2002). Guidance for industry: Drugs biologics and medical devices derived from bioengineered plants for use in humans and animals—draft guidance. Washington, DC: US Food and Drug Administration and United States Department of Agriculture.
101.
Bren, L. (2000, November-December). Genetic engineering: The future of foodss? FDA Consumner Magazine.
102.
Murphy, D. J. (2007). Improving containment strategies in biopharming. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 5, 555–569.CrossRef
103.
Abergel, E., & Barrett, K. (2002). Putting the cart before the horse: A review of biotechnology policy in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 37(3), 137–141.
104.
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. (2003). Hearing. June 12, 2003. Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
105.
Andree, P. (2002). The biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 37(3), 162–191.
106.
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. (1998, May 12). Evidence. Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
107.
Andree, P. (2006). GM food regulation. An analysis of efforts to improve genetically modified food regulation in Canada. Science and Public Policy, 33(5), 377–389.CrossRef
108.
Skogstad, G. (2010). Science and technology: Politicians and the public. In J. C. Courtney & D. E. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of canadian politics (p. 460). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
109.
110.
Grant, E. I., & Hobbs, J. E. (2002). GM food regulations: Canadian debates. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 3(2), 105–113.
111.
112.
113.
114.
Pollara Research. (2003). Public opinion research into biotechnology issues in Canada. Toronto: Pollara Research. p. 4.
115.
Health Candada. (2006). Guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://​www.​hc-sc.​gc.​ca/​fn-an/​alt_​formats/​hpfb-dgpsa/​pdf/​gmf-agm/​guidelines-lignesdirectrice​s-eng.​pdf.​
116.
117.
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. (2003). Biotechnology transforming society: Creating an innovative economy and a higher quality of life. Report on biotechnology 1998–2003. Government of Canada.
118.
119.
Skogstad, G. (2008). Internationalization and Canadian agriculture. Policy and governing paradigms (p. 230). Toronto: Toronto University Press.
120.
121.
Brasil. (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília, D.F.
122.
Rhodes, R. (2007). The politics of agricultural biotechnology in Brazil, 1995–2005. Interests and institutions as explanations for unexpected policy choices. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association. Chicago, pp. 19–20.
123.
124.
Jepson, W. E. (2002). Globalization and Brazilian biosafety: The politics of scale over biotechnology governance. Political Geography, 21, 912.CrossRef
125.
CTNBio report cited in Pelaez, V. & Schmidt, W. Social struggles and the regulation of transgenic crops in Brazil. (p. 247).
126.
Pelaez, V. (2009). State of exception in the regulation of genetically modified organisms in Brazil. Science and Public Policy, 36(1), 61–71.CrossRef
127.
Branford, S. (2001, September 5). Society: Environment: Bean stalked: Brazil is the only major world producer of GM-free soya, but for how long? The Guardian, 8.
128.
129.
Rhodes, S. (2006). The politics of agricultural biotechnology in Brazil, 1995–2005. Interests and institutions as explanations for unexpected policy choices. Presented at the Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico, p. 2.
130.
BBC. (2000). Court ruling on GM products orders environmental impact study. BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, July 8, S1.
131.
Jepson, W. Brannstrom, C. E. & de Souza, R. S. (2008). Brazilian biotechnology governance: Consensus and conflict over genetically modified crops. In G. Otero (Ed.), Food for the few. Neoliberal globalism and biotechnology in Latin America. (pp. 221–305). Austin: University of Texas Press.
132.
Prudente, P. S. cited in Bauer, M. W. (2006). The paradoxes of resistance. In G. Gaskell & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Genomics and society: Legal, ethical, and social dimensions. (p. 231). London: Earthscan.
133.
BBC. (2000, July 15). Ministers defend genetically modified products. BBC Summary of World News, S1.
134.
Government communiqué cited in Pelaez V. & Schmidt W. (2004). p. 249.
135.
Griesse, M. A. (2007). Developing social responsibility: Biotechnology and the case of DuPont in Brazil. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 111.
136.
Bauer, M. W. (2006). The paradoxes of resistance. In G. Gaskell & M. W. Bauer (Eds.), Genomics and society: Legal, ethical, and social dimensions (pp. 1–20). London: Earthscan.
137.
Pelaez, V., & da Silva, L. R. (2009). Issues concerning a sustainable regulatory body for GMO’s in Brazil. Journal of Economic Issues, XLIII, 2, 489.
138.
Smith, T. (2003, October 15). Brazil’s farmers cheer legalization of their gene-altered soy crops. The International Herald Tribune, 16.
139.
Brazil grants GM soy temporary approval. (2003, April 2–9). Chemical Week, 51.
140.
Sur, N. (2003). Brazil government lifts ban on transgenic soy. NACLA Report on the Americas, XXXVII(3), 2, 5.
141.
Leite, M. (2004). Communicating biotechnology in Brazil: The failure of scientific and public proofs among widespread anti- and pro-technoscientific fundamentalisms. Paper presented at the 4S-EASST Conference, Paris.
142.
Farias, P., Leite, J., & Allain, J. M. (2011). Evolution of the regulatory system for GM crops in Brazil. In M. Baram & M. Bourrier (Eds.), Governing risk in GM agriculture (pp. 113–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
143.
Smith, T. (2003, September 26). Brazil lifts ban on gene-altered soy crops. The International Herald Tribune, 12.
144.
Silva, J. F. (2011). Brazil. Agricultural biotechnology annual. Biotech annual 2011. Global Agricultural Information Network, BR 0713.
145.
146.
Levidow, L. (2001). Precautionary uncertainty: Regulating GM crops in Europe. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 842–874.CrossRef
147.
Löfstedt, R. E., Fischhoff, B., & Fischhoff, I. (2002). Precautionary principles: General definitions and specific applications to genetically modified organisms. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(3), 381–407.CrossRef
148.
Christoforou, T. (2004). The precautionary principle, risk assessment, and the comparative role of science in the European Community and the US legal system. In N. J. Vig & M. G. Faure (Eds.), Green giants? Environmental policies of the United States and the European Union. (pp. 17–52). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
149.
European Communities. (1990). Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-Organisms. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 117.
150.
European Communities. (1990). 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, L 0015–0027.
151.
152.
Pollack, M. A., & Shaffer, G. C. (2000). Biotechnology: The next transatlantic trade war. Washington Quarterly, 23(4), 41–54.CrossRef
153.
Anderson, D. R. (2000). Biotechnology risk management: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). CPCU Journal, 54, 215–230.
154.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2003). US versus EU: An examination of the trade issues surrounding genetically modified food. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology.
155.
Byrne, D. (2002). Speech 02/314. David Byrne. European commissioner for health and consumer protection. GM food and feed. Strasbourg: Plenary Session of the European Parliament.
156.
Byrne, D. (2001). Speech 01/378. David Byrne. European commissioner for health and consumer protection. Proposal for a regulation on GM food and feed. Brussels: European Parliament.
157.
Marris, C., et al. (2001). Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project. Brussels: Commission of European Communities.
158.
Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(1), 52–71.CrossRef
159.
Toffel, M. W., & Heyman, J. (2002). An Atlantic divide? European and American attitudes on genetically engineered food. University of California, Haas School of Business: California.
160.
Verdurme, A., et al. (2001). Differences in public acceptance between generic and premium branded GM food products: An analytical model. In V. Santaniollo, R. E. Evenson, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Market development for genetically modified foods (pp. 39–47). New York: CABI Publishing.CrossRef
161.
Hanf, C. H. & Böker, A. (2001). Is European consumers’ refusal of GM food a serious obstacle or a transient fashion? In V. Santaniollo, R. E. Evenson, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Market development for genetically modified foods. (pp. 49–54). New York: CABI Publishing.
162.
163.
164.
Lee, M. (2008). EU regulation of GMOs. Law and decision making for a new technology (pp. 2–4). Chelensham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRef
165.
Schauzu, M. (2010). The European Union’s regulatory framework. Developments in legislation, safety assessment, and public perception. In M. Baram & M. Bourrier (Eds.), Governing risk in GM agriculture (pp. 57–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
166.
167.
168.
Stemke, D. J. (2004). Genetically modified organisms: Biosafety and ethical issues. In S. R. Parekh (Ed.), The GMO handbook. genetically modified animals, microbes and plants in biotechnology (p. 108). Totowa: Humana Press.
169.
Carter, C. A. & Gruère, G. P. (2006). International approval and labeling regulations of genetically modified food in major trading countries. In R. E. Just, J. M. Alston, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Regulating agricultural biotechnology. Economic and policy (p. 470). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
170.
European Union. (2003). Regulation (EC) No 182’9/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Official Journal of the European Union. Department of Health and Human Services, L268/5.
171.
Shaffer, G. C., & Pollack, M. A. (2009). The EU regulatory system of GMOs. In M. Everson & E. Vo (Eds.), Uncertain risks regulated (p. 280). New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
172.
Tzotzos, G. T., Head, G. P., & Hull, R. (2009). Genetically modified plants. Assessing safety and managing risk (pp. 138–143). San Diego: Academic Press.
173.
European Commission. (2004). 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. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​biotechnology/​docs/​com2004-250_​en.​pdf.
174.
175.
Anderson, L. (2000). Genetic engineering, food, and our environment. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
176.
Peters, H., et al. (2007). 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, 19(2), 191–220.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Role of Risk Perception and Political Culture: A Comparative Study of Regulating Genetically Modified Food
verfasst von
Tony E. Wohlers
Copyright-Jahr
2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch
Risk and Cognition

Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45703-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-662-45704-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2015

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45704-7_2

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise