IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v3y2000i3p227-235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Denmark: potential polarization or consensus?

Author

Listed:
  • Jesper Toft

Abstract

In Denmark the political debate about genetically modified products continued more forcefully when the first GM food reached the market in 1997. The focus of the political debate shifted to the commercial stage; more significant NGOs entered the debate; new forms of activism emerged. They challenged the adequacy of the Danish precautionary approach. This debate led to further conflicts -- focusing on broad concerns about risk, sustainability, ethics and value judgements. These concerns lay beyond the regulatory expertise, which has treated risk in a more narrow biophysical sense. Consequently, a former national consensus has been weakened by a new polarization. In response, the Minister for Environment has taken initiatives beyond the safety regulation: industry accepted a voluntary agreement that only GM fodder beet would be grown on a large scale in Denmark in 1999. Danish retailers made an agreement to accept GM foods only if they were labelled according to the process-based criteria of the former Danish regulation. Thus the polarized public debate has not affected basic regulatory assumptions about risk, but it has influenced initiatives outside the formal regulatory space.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesper Toft, 2000. "Denmark: potential polarization or consensus?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 227-235, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:3:y:2000:i:3:p:227-235
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870050043099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870050043099
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870050043099?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
    ---><---

    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:taf:jriskr:v:3:y:2000:i:3:p:227-235. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.