Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:17:05.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2007

Yann Devos ,
Dirk Reheul ,
Danny De Waele  and
Linda Van Speybroeck
Yann Devos
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Dirk Reheul
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Danny De Waele
Affiliation:
Centre for Critical Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Linda Van Speybroeck
Affiliation:
Centre for Critical Philosophy, Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Recapitulating how genetic modification technology and its agro-food products aroused strong societal opposition in the European Union, this paper demonstrates how this opposition contributed to shape the European regulatory frame on GM crops. More specifically, it describes how this opposition contributed to a de facto moratorium on the commercialization of new GM crop events in the end of the nineties. From this period onwards, the regulatory frame has been continuously revised in order to slow down further erosion of public and market confidence. Various scientific and technical reforms were made to meet societal concerns relating to the safety of GM crops. In this context, the precautionary principle, environmental post-market monitoring and traceability were adopted as ways to cope with scientific uncertainties. Labeling, traceability, co-existence and public information were installed in an attempt to meet the general public request for more information about GM agro-food products, and the specific demand to respect the consumers' and farmers' freedom of choice. Despite these efforts, today, the explicit role of public participation and/or ethical consultation during authorization procedures is at best minimal. Moreover, no legal room was created to progress to an integral sustainability evaluation during market procedures. It remains to be seen whether the recent policy shift towards greater transparency about value judgments, plural viewpoints and scientific uncertainties will be one step forward in integrating ethical concerns more explicitly in risk analysis. As such, the regulatory frame stands open for further interpretation, reflecting in various degrees a continued interplay with societal concerns relating to GM agro-food products. In this regard, both societal concerns and diversely interpreted regulatory criteria can be inferred as signaling a request – and even a quest – to render more explicit the broader-than-scientific dimension of the actual risk analysis.

Keywords

Co-existencede facto moratoriumethicsgenetically modified cropslabelingpost-market monitoringprecautionary principlepublic participationsocietal concernssustainability
Type
Research Article
Information
Environmental Biosafety Research , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 127 - 149
Copyright
© ISBR, EDP Sciences, 2007

References

ACRE (2004a) Advice on the implementation of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerance crops, http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice44.pdf
ACRE (2004b) Guidance on best practice in the design of post-market monitoring plans in submissions to the Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/postmarket/acre_postmarketmonitor-guidance.pdf
ACRE (2005) Advice on the implementation of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerance winter oilseed rape, http://www.defra.gov.uk/Environment/acre/advice/pdf/acre_advice65.pdf
ACRE (2006) Managing the footprint of agriculture: towards a comparative assessment of risks and benefits for novel agricultural systems, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/fsewiderissues/acre-fse-060317draft.pdf
Altieri MA (2005) The myth of coexistence: why transgenic crops are not compatible with agroecologically based systems of production. B. Sci. Technol. Soc. 25: 1–11
BAC (2004) Advice on the British report `On the rationale and interpretation of the Farm-Scale Evaluation (FSE) of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops', http://www.bio-council.be/docs/BAC_2004_SC_087.pdf
Bennett, PM, Livesey, CT, Nathwani, D, Reeves, DS, Saunders, JR, Wise, R (2004) An assessment of the risks associated with the use of antibiotic resistance genes in genetically modified plants: report of the working party of the British society for antimicrobial chemotherapy. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 53: 418–431 CrossRef
Bonneuil C, Joly PB, Marris C (in press) Disentrenching experiment? The construction of GM-crop field trials as a social problem in France. Sci. Tech. Human Values
Brom, FWA (2000) Food, consumer concerns, and trust: food ethics for a globalizing market. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 12: 127–139 CrossRef
Carr, S (2002) Ethical and value-based aspects of the European Commission's precautionary principle. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15: 31–38 CrossRef
Carr, S, Levidow, L (2000) Exploring the links between science, risk, uncertainty and ethics in regulatory controversies about genetically modified crops. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 12: 29–39 CrossRef
Carter, CA, Gruère, GP (2003) Mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods: does it really provide consumer choice? AgBioForum 6: 68–70
CEC (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf
CEC (2006) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed
Chamberlain DE, Fuller RJ, Bunce RGH, Duckworth JC, Shrubb M (2000) Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J. Appl. Ecol. 37: 771–788
Chapman, MA, Burke, JM (2006) Letting the gene out of the bottle: the population genetics of genetically modified crops. New Phytol. 170: 429–443 CrossRef
Chassy, B, Carter, C, McGloughlin, M, McHughen, A, Parrott, W, Preston, C, Roush, R, Shelton, A, Strauss, SH (2003) UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions. Nat. Biotechnol. 21: 1429–1430 CrossRef
Christoforou, T (2004) The regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union: the interplay of science, law and politics. CML Rev. 41: 637–709
COGEM (2003) Towards an integrated framework for the assessment of social and ethical issues in modern biotechnology, http://www.cogem.net/pdfdb/advies/CGM030618-02UK.pdf
Cook, G, Pieri, E, Robbins, PT (2004) `The scientists think and the public feels': expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse Soc. 15: 433–449 CrossRef
Cook, G, Robbins, PT, Pieri, E (2006) “Words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Underst. Sci. 15: 5–29 CrossRef
de Sadeleer, N (2006) The precautionary principle in the EC health and environmental law. ELJ 12: 139–172 CrossRef
De Schrijver, A, Devos, Y, Van den Bulcke, M, Cadot, P, De Loose, M, Reheul, D, Sneyers, M (2007) Risk assessment of GM stacked events obtained from crosses between GM events. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 18: 101–109 CrossRef
Deblonde, M, du Jardin P (2005) Deepening a precautionary European policy. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18: 319–343
Deckers, J (2005) Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? Reflections on discussions of GM. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18: 451–478 CrossRef
Demeke, T, Perry, DJ, Scowcroft, WR (2006) Adventitious presence of GMOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 1–23 CrossRef
Demont, M, Tollens, E (2004) First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain. An. Appl. Biol. 145: 197–207 CrossRef
Devos, Y, Reheul, D, De Schrijver, A, Cors, F, Moens, W (2004) Management of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in Europe: a case study on minimizing vertical gene flow. Environ. Biosafety Res. 3: 135–148 CrossRef
Devos, Y, Reheul, D, De Schrijver A (2005) The co-existence between transgenic and non-transgenic maize in the European Union: a focus on pollen flow and cross-fertilization. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4: 71–87 CrossRef
Devos Y, Reheul D, Thas O, De Clercq EM, Cougnon M, Cordemans K (2007) Implementing isolation perimeters around genetically modified maize fields. Agron. Sustain. Dev., doi:10.1051/agro:2006005
EC (2006) Report on the implementation of national measures on the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm
EFSA (2004a) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants. EFSA J. 48: 1–18
EFSA (2004b) Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA J. 99: 1–94
EFSA (2006a) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on the post market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants. EFSA J. 319: 1–27
EFSA (2006b) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on a request from the Commission related to the notification (C/SE/96/3501) for the placing on the market of genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 with altered starch composition, for cultivation and production of starch, under Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC from BASF Plant Science. EFSA J. 323: 1–20
EFSA (2006c) Opinion of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms on a request from the Commission related to genetically modified crops (Bt176 maize, MON810 maize, T25 maize, Topas 19/2 oilseed rape and MS1 $\times$ RF1 oilseed rape) subject to safeguard clauses invoked according to Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC. EFSA J. 338: 1–15
EFSA (2006d) Transparency in risk assessment carried out by EFSA: guidance document on procedural aspects. EFSA J. 353: 1–16
EGE (1995) Opinion of the group of advisers on the ethical implications of biotechnology to the European Commission on the ethical aspects of the labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology, http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/opinion5_en.pdf
Firbank, L, Lonsdale, M, Poppy, G (2005) Reassessing the environmental risks of GM crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 23: 1–2 CrossRef
Frewer, L, Lassen, J, Kettlitz, B, Scholderer, J, Beekman, V, Berdal, KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified food. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42: 1181–1193 CrossRef
Friesen, LF, Nelson, AG, Van Acker, RC (2003) Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically modified herbicide resistance traits. Agron. J. 95: 1342–1347 CrossRef
Gaskell, G, Allum, N, Wagner, W, Kronberger, N, Torgersen, H, Hampel, J, Bardes, J (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal. 24: 185-194 CrossRef
Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Eurobarometer 64.3, http://www.ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf
Genus A, Coles AM (2005) On constructive technology assessment and limitations on public participation in technology assessment. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manage. 17: 433–443
Goldstein, DA, Tinland, B, Gilbertson, LA, Staub, JM, Bannon, GA, Goodman, RE, McCoy, RL, Silvanovich, A (2005) Human safety and genetically modified plants: a review of antibiotic resistance markers and future transformation selection technologies. J. Appl. Microbiol. 99: 7–23 CrossRef
Gottweis, H (2005) Transnationalizing recombinant-DNA regulation: between Asilomar, EMBO, the OECD, and the European Community. Sci. Cult. 14: 325–338 CrossRef
Gruère, GP (2006) A preliminary comparison of the retail level effects of genetically modified food labelling policies in Canada and France. Food Policy 31: 148–161 CrossRef
Gryson N, Messens K, Van Laere D, Eeckhout M (2007) Co-existence and traceability of GM and non-GM products in the feed chain. Eur. Food Res. Technol., doi: 10.1007/s00217-006-0511-x
Guehlstorf, NP, Hallstrom, LK (2005) The role of culture in risk regulations: a comparative case study of genetically modified corn in the United States of America and European Union. Environ. Sci. Policy 8: 327–342 CrossRef
Hails, RS, Morley, K (2005) Genes invading new populations: a risk assessment perspective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 245–252 CrossRef
Heller, C (2002) From scientific risk to paysan savoir-faire: peasant expertise in the French and global debate over GM crops. Sci. Cult. 11: 5–37 CrossRef
Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4: 67–70
Hill, RA, Sendashonga, C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons for chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 81–88 CrossRef
Hoffmann-Riem, H, Wynne, B (2002) In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance. Nature 416: 123 CrossRef
Holst-Jensen, A, De Loose, M, van den Eede G (2006) Coherence between legal requirements and approaches for detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their derived products. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54: 2799–2809 CrossRef
Huffman WE (2004) Production, identity preservation, and labeling in a marketplace with genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods. Plant Physiol. 134: 3–10
Irwin, A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the `new' scientific governance. Soc. Stu. Sci. 36: 299–320 CrossRef
Jensen, KK (2002) The moral foundation of the precautionary principle. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15: 39–55 CrossRef
Jensen, KK, Sandøe, P (2002) Food safety and ethics: the interplay between science and values. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15: 245–253 CrossRef
Jensen, KK, Gamborg, C, Madsen, KH, Jørgensen, RB, Krayer von Krauss, M, Folker, AP, Sandøe, P (2003) Making the EU “Risk Window” transparent: the normative foundation of risk assessment of GMOs. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 161–171 CrossRef
Johnson, KL, Raybould, AF, Hudson, MD, Poppy, GM (2007) How does scientific risk assessment of GM crops fit within the wider risk analysis? Trends Plant Sci. 12: 1-5 CrossRef
Kalaitzandonakes, N, Bijman, J (2003) Who is driving biotechnology acceptance? Nat. Biotechnol. 21: 366–369 CrossRef
Karlsson, M (2003a) Ethics of sustainable development - a study of Swedish regulations for genetically modified organisms. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 16: 51–62 CrossRef
Karlsson, M (2003b) Biosafety principles for GMOs in the context of sustainable development. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World Ecol. 10: 15–26 CrossRef
Karlsson, M (2006) Science and norms in policies for sustainable development: assessing and managing risks of chemical substances and genetically modified organisms in the European Union. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44: 49–56 CrossRef
Kok EJ, Kuiper HA (2003) Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops. Trends Biotechnol. 21: 439–444
König, A, Cockburn, A, Crevel, RWR, Debruyne, E, Grafstroem, R, Hammerling, U, Kimber, I, Knudsen, I, Kuiper, HA, Peijnenburg, AACM, Penninks, AH, Poulsen, M, Schauzu, M, Wal, JM (2004) Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42: 1047–1088 CrossRef
Krayer von Krauss, MP, Casman, EA, Small, MJ (2004) Elicitation of expert judgments of uncertainty in the risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape crops. Risk Anal. 24: 1515–1527 CrossRef
Lassen, J, Jamison, A (2006) Genetic technologies meet the public: the discourses of concern. Sci. Tech. Human Values 31: 8–28 CrossRef
Lassen, J, Madsen, KH, Sandøe, P (2002) Ethics and genetic engineering – lessons to be learned from GM foods. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 24: 263–271 CrossRef
Lezaun, J (2006) Creating a new object of government: making genetically modified organisms traceable. Soc. Stu. Sci. 36: 499–531 CrossRef
Levidow, L (2001) Precautionary uncertainty: regulating GM crops in Europe. Soc. Stu. Sci. 31: 842–874 CrossRef
Levidow L (2006) EU agbiotech regulation. Soziale Technik 3: 10-12
Levidow, L, Bijman, J (2002) Farm inputs under pressure from the European food industry. Food Policy 27: 31–45 CrossRef
Levidow L, Boschert K (in press) Coexistence or contradictions? Agricultural biotechnology versus alternative agricultures in Europe. Geoforum
Levidow L, Carr S (in press) Europeanising advisory expertise: the role of `independent, objective and transparent' scientific advice in agri-biotech regulation. Environ. Plann. C
Levidow, L, Carr, S, Wield, D (2005) European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Sci. Public Policy 32: 261–276 CrossRef
Levidow, L, Murphy, J, Carr, S (2007) Recasting “substantial equivalence”: transatlantic governance of GM food. Sci. Tech. Human Values 32: 26-64 CrossRef
Lheureux, K, Menrad, K (2004) A decade of European fields trials with genetically modified plants. Environ. Biosafety Res. 3: 99–107 CrossRef
Lilley, AK, Bailey, MJ, Cartwright, C, Turner, SL, Hirsch, PR (2006) Life in earth: the impact of GM plants on soil ecology? Trends Biotechnol. 24: 9–14 CrossRef
Lusk JL, Traill WB, House LO, Valli C, Jaeger SR, Moore M, Morrow B (2006) Comparative advantage in demand: experimental evidence of preferences for genetically modified food in the United States and European Union. J. Agr. Econ. 57: 1–21
Madsen, KH, Sandøe, P (2005) Ethical reflections on herbicide-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 61: 318–325 CrossRef
Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S (2001) Public perception of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project, http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/
Marris, C, Joly, PB, Ronda, S, Bonneuil, C (2005) How the French GM controversy led to the reciprocal emancipation of scientific expertise and policy making. Sci. Public Policy 32: 301–308 CrossRef
Marvier, M, Van Acker, RC (2005) Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Front. Ecol. Environ. 3: 99–106 CrossRef
Mayer, S, Stirling, A (2002) Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments – lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 15: 57–71 CrossRef
Mepham, B (2000) A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: the ethical matrix. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 12: 165–176 CrossRef
Millstone, E, Brunner, E, Mayer, S (1999) Beyond `substantial equivalence'. Nature 401: 525–526 CrossRef
Miraglia, M, Berdal, KG, Brera, C, Corbisier, P, Holst-Jensen, A, Kok, EJ, Marvin, HJP, Schimmel, H, Rentsch, J, van Rie, JPPF, Zagon, J (2004) Detection and traceability of genetically modified organisms in the food production chain. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42: 1157–1180 CrossRef
Mitchell, P (2003) Europe sees sharp decline in GMO research. Nat. Biotechnol. 21: 468–469 CrossRef
Murphy, J, Levidow, L, Carr, S (2006) Regulatory standards for environmental risks: understanding the US-European Union conflict over genetically modified crops. Soc. Stu. Sci. 36: 133–160 CrossRef
Myhr, AI, Traavik, T (2003) Sustainable development and Norwegian genetic engineering regulations: applications, impacts and challenges. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 16: 317–335 CrossRef
Nielsen L, Faber BA (2002) Ethical principles in European regulation of biotechnology – possibilities and pitfalls, http://www.biotik.dk/myndigheder/bioTIK/Udredninger/etiske_principper/engelsk/
Nisbet MC, Huge M (2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate – managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harv. Int. J. Press-Pol. 11: 3–40
Noussair, C, Robin, S, Ruffieux, B (2004) Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified food? Econ. J. 114: 102–120 CrossRef
Nowotny, H (2003) Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 30: 151–156 CrossRef
Oreszczyn, S (2005) GM crops in the UK: precaution as process. Sci. Public Policy 32: 317–324 CrossRef
Paula L, van den Belt H (in press) Work package 5: ethics in food technologies. The institutionalisation of ethics in science policy; practices and impact, http://www.bioethics.it/pdf/pc_3/ines_pagina_introduttiva.pdf
Petersen, A (2005) The metaphors of risk: biotechnology in the news. Health Risk Soc. 7: 203–208 CrossRef
Robinson, RA, Sutherland, WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 157–176 CrossRef
Saji, H, Nakajima, N, Aono, M, Tamaoki, M, Kubo, A, Wakiyama, S, Natase, Y, Nagatsu, M (2005) Monitoring the escape of transgenic oilseed rape around Japanese ports and roadsides. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4: 217–222 CrossRef
Sandin P (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 5: 889–907
Sanvido, O, Widmer, F, Winzeler, M, Bigler, F (2005) A conceptual framework for the design of environmental post-market monitoring of genetically modified plants. Environ. Biosafety Res. 4: 13–27 CrossRef
Schenkelaars, P (2002) Rethinking substantial equivalence. Nat. Biotechnol. 20: 119 CrossRef
Schibeci, R, Harwood, J, Dietrich, H (2006) Community involvement in biotechnology policy? The Australian experience. Sci. Comm. 27: 429–445 CrossRef
Schiemann, J (2003) Co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 213–217 CrossRef
Schot, J (2001) Towards new forms of participatory technology development. Techn. Anal. Strat. Manage. 13: 39–52 CrossRef
SCP (2001) Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants concerning the adventitious presence of GM seeds in conventional seeds, http://ec.europa.eu/comm/food/fs/sc/scp/out93_gmo_en.pdf
Shaw, A (2002) “It just goes against the grain.” Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Underst. Sci. 11: 273–291 CrossRef
Siegrist, M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20: 195–203 CrossRef
Slovic, P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236: 280–285 CrossRef
Spence, A, Townsend, E (2006) Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Anal. 26: 657–670 CrossRef
Streiffer, R, Hedemann, T (2005) The political import of intrinsic objections to genetically engineered food. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 18: 191–210 CrossRef
Streiffer R, Rubel A (2004) Democratic principles and mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. Pub. Affairs Quart. 18: 223–248
Tencalla, F (2006) Science, politics and the GM debate in Europe. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44: 43–48 CrossRef
Townsend, E (2006) Affective influences on risk perceptions of, and attitudes toward, genetically modified food. J. Risk Res. 9: 125–139 CrossRef
van den Eede, G, Aarts, H, Buhk, HJ, Corthier, G, Flint, HJ, Hammes, W, Jacobsen, B, Midtvedt, T, van der Vossen, J, von Wright, A, Wackernagel, W, Wilcks, A (2004) The relevance of gene transfer of food and feed derived from genetically modified (GM) plants. Food Chem. Toxicol. 42: 1127–1156 CrossRef
Verhoog, H, Matze, M, Lammerts Van Bueren, E, Baars, T (2003) The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 16: 29–49 CrossRef
Vogel, G (2006) Tracing transatlantic spread of GM rice. Science 313: 1714 CrossRefPubMed
Wandall, B (2004) Values in science and risk assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 152: 265–272 CrossRef
Weighardt, F (2006) European GMO labeling thresholds impractical and unscientific. Nat. Biotechnol. 24: 23–25 CrossRef
Wynne, B (2001) Expert discourses of risks and ethics on genetically manipulated organisms: the weaving of public alienation. Notizie di Politeia 17: 51–76
Yoshimura, Y, Beckie, HJ, Matsuo, K (2006) Transgenic oilseed rape along transportation routes and port of Vancouver in western Canada. Environ. Biosafety Res. 5: 67–75 CrossRef