IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i8p1513-1517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to be Cautious but Open to Learning: Time to Update Biotechnology and GMO Legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Ove Hansson

Abstract

Precautionary measures to protect human health and the environment should be science based. This implies that they should be directed at a potential danger for which there is credible scientific evidence (although that evidence need not be conclusive). Furthermore, protective measures should be updated as relevant science advances. This means that decisionmakers should be prepared to strengthen the precautionary measures if the danger turns out to be greater than initially suspected, and to reduce or lift them, should the danger prove to be smaller. Most current legislation on agricultural biotechnology has not been scientifically updated. Therefore, it reflects outdated criteria for identifying products that can cause problems. Modern knowledge in genetics, plant biology, and ecology has provided us with much better criteria that risk analysts can use to identify the potentially problematic breeding projects at which precautionary measures should be directed. Legislation on agricultural biotechnology should be scientifically updated. Furthermore, legislators should learn from this example that regulations based on the current state of science need to have inbuilt mechanisms for revisions and adjustments in response to future developments in science.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Ove Hansson, 2016. "How to be Cautious but Open to Learning: Time to Update Biotechnology and GMO Legislation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1513-1517, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:8:p:1513-1517
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12647
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12647?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. Claire Ainsworth, 2015. "Agriculture: A new breed of edits," Nature, Nature, vol. 528(7580), pages 15-16, December.
    2. 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.
    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. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    2. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    3. Pieter van Gelder & Pim Klaassen & Behnam Taebi & Bart Walhout & Ruud van Ommen & Ibo van de Poel & Zoe Robaey & Lotte Asveld & Ruud Balkenende & Frank Hollmann & Erik Jan van Kampen & Nima Khakzad & , 2021. "Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-28, June.

    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. Onozaka, Yuko & Saue, Vegar Veseth & Costanigro, Marco, 2018. "The Moderating Effect of Heterogeneous Beliefs on Consumer Preferences for a New Food Technology: The Case of Modified Atmospheric Packaging," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. John D. Graham & Jonathan B. Wiener, 2008. "The precautionary principle and risk--risk tradeoffs: a comment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 465-474, June.
    3. Daniel Ammann & Angelika Hilbeck & Beatrice Lanzrein & Philipp Hübner & Bernadette Oehen, 2007. "Procedure for the Implementation of the Precautionary Principle in Biosafety Commissions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, June.
    4. Yan Cai & Eunmi Kim, 2019. "Sustainable Development in World Trade Law: Application of the Precautionary Principle in Korea-Radionuclides," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Vasco Barroso Gonçalves, 2020. "Uncertain Risk Assessment and Management: Case Studies of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in Portugal," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 939-956, May.
    6. Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    7. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    8. Hopkins, Michael M. & Nightingale, Paul, 2006. "Strategic risk management using complementary assets: Organizational capabilities and the commercialization of human genetic testing in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-374, April.
    9. Alessandro Nicita & Marina Murina, 2014. "Trading With Conditions: The Effect Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures On Lower Income Countries’ Agricultural Exports," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 68, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    10. Kelsey D. Meagher, 2022. "Policy responses to foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States and Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 233-248, March.
    11. Terje Aven, 2011. "On Different Types of Uncertainties in the Context of the Precautionary Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1515-1525, October.
    12. MacAuley, Molly K., 2006. "Issues at the Forefront of Public Policy for Environmental Risk: Comments for the American Meteorological Society's Annual Policy Colloquium," Discussion Papers 10494, Resources for the Future.
    13. Chataway, Joanna & Tait, Joyce & Wield, David, 2004. "Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 1041-1057, September.
    14. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    15. Irene Lorenzoni & Nick F. Pidgeon & Robert E. O'Connor, 2005. "Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1387-1398, December.
    16. Macauley, Molly, 2006. "Some Issues at the Forefront of Public Policy for Environmental Risk," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-01, Resources for the Future.
    17. O'Neill, Katherine, 2006. "Mad Cows and Ailing Hens: The Transatlantic Relationship and Livestock Diseases," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt94f2963j, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
    18. Steve Jacob & Nathalie Schiffino, 2015. "Risk Policies in the United States: Definition and Characteristics Based on a Scoping Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 849-858, May.
    19. Brian Hector MacGillivray & Ruth E. Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2011. "Is Risk‐Based Regulation Feasible? The Case of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 266-281, February.
    20. Johnson Kakeu, 2023. "Concerns for Long-Run Risks and Natural Resource Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 1051-1093, April.

    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:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:8:p:1513-1517. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.