IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v29y2002i1p47-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining a safe genetically modified organism: Boundaries of scientific risk assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Barrett
  • Elisabeth Abergel

Abstract

The development and commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) crops continues despite persisting uncertainties regarding environmental impacts. Canada is one of the world's largest producers and exporters of GM crops. Regulators have claimed that existing federal policies for assessing environmental hazards are ‘science-based’ and sufficiently precautionary. We challenge this by examining the scientific data used to approve one variety of GM canola for environmental release. We argue that the legitimacy and plausibility of the regulatory decision rests significantly on boundaries constructed around the definition of a ‘science-based risk assessment’. We advocate a stronger role for the precautionary principle as a regulatory style that recognises the importance of scientific knowledge yet also the limitations and negotiated nature of science, and the need for more open, participatory decision-making processes. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Barrett & Elisabeth Abergel, 2002. "Defining a safe genetically modified organism: Boundaries of scientific risk assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 47-58, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:29:y:2002:i:1:p:47-58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154302781781128
    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.

    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:29:y:2002:i:1:p:47-58. 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.