IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v27y2000i1p2-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breeding familiarity: Environmental risk assessment for genetically engineered crops in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Barrett
  • Elisabeth Abergel

Abstract

As of 1995, genetically engineered (GE) crops had been planted on over three million hectares in Canada. To assess the environmental impacts of these crops, the Canadian federal government employs the principles of familiarity and substantial equivalence. These principles aim to define the ‘novelty’ of GE crops relative to non-engineered varieties, and thereby function as triggers for broader risk assessment. Here, we outline the history of familiarity and substantial equivalence, and analyse their current role in Canadian regulations. We conclude that, in practice, these principles support decisions to de-regulate GE crops by promoting biotechnology as an innovative and competitive technology, while simultaneously downplaying concerns for environmental hazards. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Barrett & Elisabeth Abergel, 2000. "Breeding familiarity: Environmental risk assessment for genetically engineered crops in Canada," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 2-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:27:y:2000:i:1:p:2-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154300781782138
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.

    More about this item

    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:oup:scippl:v:27:y:2000:i:1:p:2-12. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.