IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/inrace/205918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food: Franch an American experiences

Author

Listed:
  • Post, Diabanna L
  • Da Ros, Jérôme M

Abstract

This paper describes three cases of government-led efforts in France and the United States to bring stakeholders into the regulatory process for genetically-modified food. We analyze how government regulators, scientists, and members of the public interacted in these three different settings, and conclude that public participation is not linked with a regulatory outcome; in other words, for various reasons which we consider, public participation did not have a substantive impact on government policies in this area. We consider how these processes could be improved, by drawing on two distinct literatures — social studies of science and organization theory. A more conscious crossfertilization of the two literatures would shed some insights broadly on science and public organizations, and particularly on the problem of regulating a complex and uncertain area of technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Post, Diabanna L & Da Ros, Jérôme M, 2003. "Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food: Franch an American experiences," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:inrace:205918
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205918/files/68-69-75-101.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205918?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Vogel, 2001. "Ships Passing in the Night: The Changing Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe and the United States," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 16, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    2. Alexis Roy & Pierre-Benoit Joly, 2000. "France: broadening precautionary expertise?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 247-254, July.
    3. Marybeth Long Martello, 2001. "A Paradox of Virtue?: "Other" Knowledges and Environment-Development Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 1(3), pages 114-141, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Candau, Jacqueline & Deldrève, Valérie, 2015. "Environmental Sociology in France (1984-2014)," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(1), March.
    2. Jacqueline CANDAU & Valérie DELDRÈVE, 2015. "Environmental Sociology in France (1984-2014)," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 96(1), pages 17-42.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diabanna L. Post & Jérôme M. Da Ros, 2003. "Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food: Franch an American experiences," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 68, pages 75-101.
    2. Diabanna L. Post & Jérôme M. da Ros, 2003. "Science and public participation in regulating genetically-engineered food: Franch an American experiences," Post-Print hal-01201055, HAL.
    3. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Claire Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 68, pages 11-45.
    4. Pierre-Benoit, Joly & Claire, Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    5. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Claire Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Post-Print hal-01201044, HAL.
    6. Cadot, Olivier & Suwa-Eisenmann, Akiko & Traça, Daniel, 2003. "OGM et relations commerciales transatlantiques," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    7. Cohen, Joel I. & Paarlberg, Robert, 2004. "Unlocking Crop Biotechnology in Developing Countries--A Report from the Field," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1563-1577, September.
    8. Alasdair R. Young, 2001. "Trading Up or Trading Blows? US Politics and Transatlantic Trade in Genetically Modified Food," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 30, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    9. Donna Asteria, 2019. "Women’s Environmental Literacy in Managing Waste for Environmental Sustainability of the City," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 62(1), pages 178-185, December.
    10. Graber, Petra, 2006. "Ein Subsidiaritätstest – Die Errichtung gentechnikfreier Regionen in Österreich zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit," ITA manu:scripts 05_02, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    11. repec:lic:licosd:27611 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jonathan B. Wiener & Michael D. Rogers, 2002. "Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 317-349, October.
    13. Pierre-Benoît Joly, 2001. "Les OGM entre la science et le public? Quatre modèles pour la gouvernance de l'innovation et des risques," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 11-29.
    14. Alasdair R. Young, 2004. "The Incidental Fortress: The Single European Market and World Trade," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 393-414, June.
    15. Jacopo Torriti, 2007. "Impact Assessment in the EU: A Tool for Better Regulation, Less Regulation or Less Bad Regulation?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 239-276, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:inrace:205918. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inratfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.