IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2013i4p514-528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A distorted regulatory landscape: Genetically modified wheat and the influence of non-safety issues in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Michel Marcoux
  • Lyne Létourneau

Abstract

Drawing on the institutional analysis and development framework, this paper explores the likely influence of socio-economic issues on the processing of the application for the authorization for genetically modified wheat by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in the period 2002--4. As an attempt to explain why the CFIA regulators asked for additional environmental data relating to the unconfined release of this crop, and refrained from making a regulatory decision, this analysis focuses on the interaction between the rules that frame the formal approval process and the involvement of various actors in a lively social debate. It argues that the flexibility provided by the regulatory decision-making process, combined with the socio-economic issues that were forcefully raised by interest groups, academics and parliamentary committees, created a distorted regulatory landscape that led regulators to further scrutinize the environmental impacts of this seed. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Michel Marcoux & Lyne Létourneau, 2013. "A distorted regulatory landscape: Genetically modified wheat and the influence of non-safety issues in Canada," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 514-528, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2013:i:4:p:514-528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct003
    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:40:y:2013:i:4:p:514-528. 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.