| 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. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Lundmark Hedman, Frida, et al.
(författare)
-
Whose interest matters when regulating animal welfare? A Swedish case study
- 2021
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Sweden is often mentioned as a leading country when it comes to animal welfare (AW). However, substantial changes have been made in the national AW legislation lately, resulting in criticism. This study analysed how the Swedish Central Competent Authority (CCA) has handled AW research findings, and changes in governmental and stakeholder interests when revising the national legislation between 1988 and 2019. AW legislation amendments for cattle, pigs and horses were scrutinized as well as other governmental documents. The AW regulations have been modified several times since 1988. The main motive presented by the CCA’s for an alteration of the legislation was to improve AW. However, the CCA’s use of scientific results were surprisingly scarce and inconsistent. The second most common motive was that changes were made in the interest of the owners/industry. The stakeholders’ major opportunity to influence new AW regulations turned out to be through an early CCA consultation. After referral management, the CCA did generally not make substantial changes in relation to the original proposal, even if a majority of referral bodies were critical. The industry had the biggest impact, while the opinions from AW, animal rights, and consumer NGOs never per se induced changes. The Government and the Ministry are involved not only in the AW Act and Ordinance but indirectly also at the CCA level. The CCA regulations did mirror the Government’s views and wordings, focusing on improving the AW level and making detailed regulations before 2007, and after 2007 recommending that the CCA regulations’ AW level shall be maintained but less detailed, more flexible and goal oriented. The governmental directions to the CCA are, and have been, anything but unambiguous. The regulations can hence be perceived as inconsistent. We hence, argue that the politicians need to provide clearer directions and instructions to the CCA.
|
|
| 4. |
- Röcklinsberg, Helena
(författare)
-
Lay persons involvement and public interest. Ethical assessment in animal ethics committees in Sweden. The Swedish transition process of the EU Directive 2010/63/EU with regard to harm-benefit analysis in animal ethics committees
- 2015
-
Ingår i: ALTEX Proceedings. - 2194-0479. ; 4, s. 45-48
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Messerli Research Institute asked me to give a presentation of the Swedish situation with regard to the implementation of the Directive 2010/63/EU, for which I’m most grateful. Given that the administrative and legal transition process is not of primary interest as relatively small changes were made in Swedish legislation, the focus here will rather be on a few issues which are typical for Sweden and relevant for the application of the Directive: lay person involvement in the ethical assessment, i.e. the decision-making process in the ethical review, as prescribed by the Swedish Animal Welfare Act (SFS 1988:534). In Sweden, a system of Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) was initiated in 1976, fully established in 1979 and located at a number of civil courts, i.e., not governed by or located at universities or other research facilities. Since then it has been mandatory to apply for permission for all research including animals. The AECs included lay persons from the beginning. In 1989, however, today’s system of half of the committee members being lay persons and the other half representing science came into force. During the first 19 years, decisions were advisory, as decisions on approval or rejection didn’t become legally binding before 1998. The regulation for the composition of the AECs has not changed due to the implementation of the EU Directive, but differs from the ones of many other EU Member States. Half the committee members are lay persons, but have a difficult task to ensure “public perspectives” in the ethical assessment. In this regard, I briefly discuss the role of transparency as laid down in the Swedish legislation and relate this to recent studies on decision-making in Swedish AECs, arguing for improved structure of discussion in order to ensure lay persons’/society’s views are included in the assessment process.
|
|
