| 1. |
- Sandin, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
Technology neutrality and regulation of agricultural biotechnology
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Professionals in food chains: ethics, rules and responsibility. EurSafe 2018, Vienna, Austria 13 – 16 June 2018 / edited by: Svenja Springer, Herwig Grimm. - Wageningen, Netherlands : Wageningen Academic Publishers. - 9789086863211
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Agricultural biotechnology, in particular genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is subject to regulation in many areas of the world, not least in the European Union (EU). A number of authors have argued that those regulatory processes are unfair, costly, and slow and that regulation therefore should move in the direction of increased ‘technology neutrality’. The issue is becoming more pressing, especially since new biotechnologies such as CRISPR increasingly blur the regulatory distinction between GMOs and non-GMOs. This paper offers a definition of technology neutrality, uses the EU GMO regulation as a starting point for exploring technology neutrality, and presents distinctions between variants of the call for technology neutral GMO regulation in the EU.
|
|
| 2. |
- Edvardsson Björnberg, Karin, Docent, 1972-, et al.
(författare)
-
Consistent risk regulation? Differences in the European regulation of food crops
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Risk Research. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1366-9877 .- 1466-4461. ; 22:12, s. 1561-1570
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In the EU legal system, there is a large difference between the procedures and requirements for the introduction of crops that are classified as genetically modified (GM) and crops not so classified. In order to investigate whether this regulatory divide is compatible with real risks two cases of GM crops and two cases of non-GM crops are scrutinized. It is concluded that the regulatory divide cannot be justified from the viewpoint of risk assessment, since the GM/non-GM dichotomy is not an accurate indicator of either health risk or environmental risk. Much better such indicators are available and should form the basis of a legislation aimed at preventing the introduction of crops that are harmful for human health or the environment. If the legislator has other reasons to regulate GM crops differently than conventional crops, then those reasons should be stated in the legislation and determine the types of measures that it prescribes.
|
|
| 3. |
- Eriksson, Dennis, et al.
(författare)
-
Options to Reform the European Union Legislation on GMOs : Post-authorization and Beyond
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Trends in Biotechnology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-7799 .- 1879-3096. ; 38:5, s. 465-467
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organism (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. In this third of three articles, we focus on labeling and coexistence as well as discuss the political reality and potential ways forward.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sandin, Per, et al.
(författare)
-
Technology Neutrality in European Regulation of GMOs
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ethics, Policy & Environment. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2155-0085 .- 2155-0093. ; 1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objections to the current EU regulatory system on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in terms of high cost and lack of consistency, speed and scientific underpinning have prompted proposals for a more technology-neutral system. We sketch the conceptual background of the notion of ‘technology neutrality’ and propose a refined definition of the term. The proposed definition implies that technology neutrality of a regulatory system is a gradual and multidimensional feature. We use the definition to analyze two regulatory reform proposals: One proposal from the Netherlands for improving the exemption mechanism for GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC, and one from the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, outlining a new stratified risk assessment procedure. While both proposals offer some degree of improved technology neutrality in some dimensions compared to current EU regulation, in some extents and dimensions, they do not. We conclude that proposals for more technology-neutral regulation of GMOs need, first, to make explicit to what extent and in what dimensions the proposal improves neutrality and, second, to present arguments supporting that these specific improvements constitute desirable policy change against the background of objections to current policy.
|
|
| 5. |
- Eriksson, Dennis, et al.
(författare)
-
Options to Reform the European Union Legislation on GMOs : Risk Governance
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Trends in Biotechnology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-7799 .- 1879-3096. ; 38:4, s. 349-351
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Here, we discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organism (GMO) regulatory framework, to make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and to lay the groundwork for international coherence. We discussed the scope and definitions in a previous article and, thus, here we focus on the procedures for risk assessment and risk management.
|
|
