Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:15:58.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Oversight Systems for Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Genetically Engineered Organisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jennifer Kuzma ,
Pouya Najmaie  and
Joel Larson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

U.S. approaches to oversight of research and technological products have developed over time in an effort to ensure safety to humans, animals, and the environment and to control use in a social context. In modern times, regulatory and oversight tools have evolved to include diverse approaches such as performance standards, tradable allowances, consultations between government and industry, and pre-market safety and efficacy reviews. The decision whether to impose an oversight system, the oversight elements, the level of oversight (for example, federal, state, local), the choice of approach (for example, mandatory or voluntary), and its execution can profoundly affect technological development, individual and collective interests, and public confidence in technological products. Oversight is conducted by a range of institutions with various capabilities, cultures, and motives. Avenues for disputing oversight decisions are also important, and some argue that the U.S. operates in an adversarial regulatory culture in which Congress, the media, and stakeholders regularly contest the decisions of federal agencies.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Winter 2009 , pp. 546 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wiener, J. B., “The Regulation of Technology, and the Technology of Regulation,” Technology in Society 26, nos. 2–3 (2004): 483–500; Davies, C., EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, D.C., 2007.Google Scholar
Rabino, I., “How European and U.S. Genetic Engineering Scientists View the Impact of Public Attention on Their Field: A Comparison,” Science, Technology, and Human Values 19, no. 1 (1994): 23–46; Zechendorf, B., “What the Public Thinks About Biotechnology: A Survey of Opinion Polls,” Bio/Technology 12, no. 9 (1994): 870-875; Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S. and Wiek, A., “Laypeople's and Expert's Perceptions of Nanotechnology Hazards,” Risk Analysis 27, no.1 (2007): 59-69; Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J., “Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6, no. 4 (2004): 395-405; Macoubrie, J., “Nanotechnology: Public Concerns, Reasoning, and Trust in Government,” Public Understanding of Science 15, no. 2 (2006): 221-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, J., “Regulatory Science as Culture: Contested Two-Dimensional Values at the US FDA,” Science as Culture 11, no. 3 (2002): 309–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S., The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
National Nanotechnology Initiative, “What Is Nanotechnology?” available at <http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html> (last visited August 27, 2009).+(last+visited+August+27,+2009).>Google Scholar
Project on Emerging Technologies, “A Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory,” available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/44/consumer-nanotechnology> (last visited August 4, 2008).+(last+visited+August+4,+2008).>Google Scholar
Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J. and Kokotovich, A., “Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology,” Risk Analysis 28, no. 4 (2008):1081–1098.Google Scholar
James, C., Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007, International Service for the Acquisition Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief no. 37 (Ithaca, NY: ISAAA, 2007).Google Scholar
Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, “Agricultural Biotechnology: Adoption of Biotechnology and its Production Impacts,” available at <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Biotechnology/chapter1.htm> (last visited September 24, 2008.+(last+visited+September+24,+2008.>Google Scholar
Berg, P., Baltimore, D. and Brenner, S., “Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Science 185, no. 4148 (1975): 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institutes of Health, “Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules,” Federal Register 43, no. 247 (1978): 60108–60131.Google Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,” Federal Register 51, no. 123 (1986): 23302–23350.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Environmental Implications of Genetic Engineering, 98th Congress, 1st Session, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, Committee on Science and Technology (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is a Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests, 7 C.F.R. §340 (1997); U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Genetically Engineered Organisms and Products: Notification Procedures for the Introduction of Certain Regulated Articles and Petition for Nonregulated Status,” Federal Register 58, no. 60 (1993): 17044–17059.Google Scholar
National Research Council, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000); Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulations under the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act for Plant-Incorporated Protectants,” Federal Register 66, no. 139 (2001): 37855-37869.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency, Microbial Products of Biotechnology: Final Regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 40 C.F.R. §725 (1997).Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” Federal Register 57, no. 104 (1992): 22984–23005.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, “Information for Consumers: Questions and Answers about Transgenic Fish,” available at <http://www.fda.gov/cvm/transgen.htm> (last visited September 24, 2008).+(last+visited+September+24,+2008).>Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences, Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987).Google Scholar
McHugen, A. and Smyth, S., “US Regulatory System for Genetically Modified [Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), rDNA or Transgenic] Crop Cultivars,” Plant Biotechnology Journal 6 (2008): 2–12.Google Scholar
Id., at 20.Google Scholar
See Jasanoff, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, The Gene Is Out of the Bottle: So Where to Next? Prepared by Zogby International for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and the Gene Media Forum, Washington, D.C., 2001, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Research/vf_biotech_gene_bottle.pdf> (last visited August 28, 2009).+(last+visited+August+28,+2009).>Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, U.S. vs. EU: An Examination of the Trade Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified Food, Washington, D.C., 2005, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/Biotech_USEU1205.pdf> (last visited August 28, 2009).+(last+visited+August+28,+2009).>Google Scholar
See U.S. Department of Agriculture, supra note 14; National Research Council, Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Thompson, P., Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective, 2nd ed. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2007).Google Scholar
Kuzma, J., “Nanotechnology Oversight: Just Do It,” Environmental Law Reporter 36 (2006): 10913–10923.Google Scholar
See Thompson, , supra note 26; Kuzma, J. and Besley, J. C., “Ethics of Risk Analysis and Regulatory Review: From Bio- to Nanotechnology,” Nanoethics 2, no 2 (2008): 149–162.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA 230-01-84-003 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983); U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Environmental Policy Tools (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995); see Davies, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id. (Environmental Protection Agency); Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Regulatory Planning and Review: Executive Order #12866, September 30, 1993, available at <http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/2646.html> (last visited August 28, 2009), 2007 amendments available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118.html> (last visited September 24, 2008).+(last+visited+August+28,+2009),+2007+amendments+available+at++(last+visited+September+24,+2008).>Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15; National Research Council, supra note 25; Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Issues in the Regulation of Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_biotechnology/food_biotech_regulation_0404.pdf> (last visited August 28, 2009).+(last+visited+August+28,+2009).>Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., Designs on Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Thompson, , supra note 26; Shrader-Frechete, K., “Nanotoxicology and Ethical Considerations for Informed Consent,” Nanoethics 1, no. 1 (2007): 47–56.Google Scholar
Patton, C. V. and Sawicki, D. S., Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993).Google Scholar
See Environmental Protection Agency, supra note 29; Office of the Press Secretary, supra note 30.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Sarewitz, D., “Public Values and Public Failure in U.S. Science Policy,” Science and Public Policy 32, no. 2 (2005): 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 136.Google Scholar
Singer, P., Salamanca-Buentello, F. and Daar, A., “Harnessing Nanotechnology to Improve Global Equity,” Issues in Science and Technology (Summer 2005): 57–64.Google Scholar
Walters, L., “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Intercultural Perspective,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14, no. 1 (2004): 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Jasanoff, , supra note 4; Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R., See-Through Science (London: Demos, 2004), available at <http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Seethroughsciencefinal.pdf> (last visited August 28, 2009); Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B. and Wynne, B., “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?” Science Communication 27, no. 2 (2005): 268-291.Google Scholar
Berg, B. L., Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th ed. (Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007): at 6.Google Scholar
Id., at 7.Google Scholar
Kuzma, J., Paradise, J., Ramachandran, G., Kim, J. A., Kokotovich, A. and Wolf, S. M., “An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies,” Risk Analysis 28, no. 5 (2008): 1197–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belton, V. and Stewart, T. J., Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach (Boston: Kulwer Academic Publishers, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linkov, I. et al., “Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments,” Risk Analysis 26, no. 1 (2006): 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. and Henrion, M., Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990): at 102–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kuzma, et al., supra note 43.Google Scholar
Paradise, J., Wolf, S. M., Ramachandran, G., Kokkoli, E., Hall, R. and Kuzma, J., “Developing Oversight Frameworks for Nanobiotechnology,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology 9, no. 1 (2008): 399–416.Google Scholar
See Kuzma, et al., supra note 43.Google Scholar
Rabin, C., Fuzzy Set Social Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000): at 57.Google Scholar
Forrester, J., “System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years,” in Greene, K. B. D., ed., Systems-Based Approach to Policymaking (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993).Google Scholar
Sterman, J. D., “Learning In and About Complex Systems,” System Dynamics Review 10, nos. 2–3 (1994): 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Macoubrie, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. and Walters, L., “Ethical Theory and Bioethics,” in Beauchamp, T. and Walters, L., eds., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 5th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999): at 1–32.Google Scholar
See Morgan, and Henrion, , supra note 46.Google Scholar
See Berg, , supra note 41, at 44.Google Scholar
Wolff, S. K., Hawkins, N. C., Kennedy, S. M. and Graham, J. D., “Selecting Experimental Data for Use in Qualitative Risk Assessment: An Expert Judgment Approach,” Toxicology & Industrial Health 6 (1990): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, J. E., Graham, J. D. and Stoto, M. A., “Allocating Resources Among AIDS Research Strategies,” Policy Sciences 23, no. 1 (1990): 1–23; Evans, J. S., Gray, G. M., Sielken, R. L., Smith, A. E., Valdez-Flores, C. and Graham, J. D., “Use of Probabilistic Expert Judgment in Distributional Analysis of Carcinogenic Potency,” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 20, no. 1 (1994): 15-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, N. C. and Evans, J. S., “Subjective Estimation of Toluene Exposures: A Calibration Study of Industrial Hygienists,” Applied Industrial Hygiene Journal 4 (1989): 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Berg, , supra note 41, at 95.Google Scholar
Id., at 313.Google Scholar
See Kuzma, et al., supra note 43.Google Scholar
See id.; Morgan and Henrion, supra note 46; Linkov, , supra note 45.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15.Google Scholar
Jaffe, G., “Regulating Transgenic Crops: A Comparative Analysis of Different Regulatory Processes,” Transgenic Research 13, no. 1 (2004): 5–19; National Research Council, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 25.Google Scholar
See id.; Jaffe, supra note 65.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15; National Research Council, supra note 25.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15; Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Agricultural Biotechnology: Information Disclosure: Accommodating Conflicting Interests within Public Access Norms, Washington, D.C., 2006, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Summaries_-_reports_and_pubs/PIFB_AgBiotech_Info_Disclosure_Workshop_Report.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Jaffe, , supra note 65; Kuzma, , Besley, , supra note 28.Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Public Sentiment about Genetically Modified Food, Washington, D.C., 2006, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public_opinion/Food_and_Biotechnology/2006summary.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Shrader-Frechete, , supra note 33.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 25; Jaffe, , supra note 65.Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Post-Market Oversight of Biotech Foods: Is the System Prepared? Washington, D.C., 2003, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/hhs_biotech_corn_0403.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15; Shrader-Frechete, , supra note 33.Google Scholar
See Beauchamp, and Walters, , supra note 54; Kuzma, and Besley, , supra note 28.Google Scholar
See Davies, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
See Kuzma, et al., supra note 43.Google Scholar
See Davies, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, The Stakeholder Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology: An Overview of the Process, Washington, D.C., 2003, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/PIFB_StakeholderForum_Process.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Davies, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association, “Section Nanotechnology Project,” available at <http://www.abanet.org/environ/nanotech/> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. F. and Caswell, M., The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin, no. 11 (April 2006), available at <http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).Google Scholar
See James, , supra note 8; Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Pray, C. and Wang, Q., “Plant Biotechnology in China,” Science 295, no. 5555 (2002): 674–676.Google Scholar
National Research Council, Ecological Monitoring of Genetically Engineered Crops (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001); Marvier, M., Carrière, Y., Ellstrand, N., Gepts, P., Kareiva, P., Rosi-Marshall, E., Tabashnik, B. E. and Wolfenbarger, L. L., “Harvesting Data from Genetically Engineered Crops,” Science 320, no. 5875 (2008): 452-453.Google Scholar
Kalaitzandonakes, N., “Compliance Costs for Regulatory Approval of Biotech Crops,” in Just, R., Alston, J. and Zilberman, D., eds., Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology: Economics and Policy, 1st. ed., vol. 1 (New York: Springer, 2006): at 37–57.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15.Google Scholar
Jaffe, G., Withering on the Vine: Will Agricultural Biotech's Promise Bear Fruit? Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., 2005.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, “Guidance for Industry: Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable rDNA Constructs,” Federal Register 73, no. 183 (2008): 54407–54408.Google Scholar
Pollack, A., “Without Rules, Biotech Food Lacks Investors,” New York Times, July 30, 2007, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30animal.html?ei=5090&en=e363a290fc0b105e&ex=1343448000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185773484-OtAmD8CXl20VvR/> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
Porter, M. E., “America's Green Strategy,” Scientific American 264, no. 4 (1991): 168–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Jaffe, , supra note 90.Google Scholar
See Kalaitzandonakes, , supra note 87.Google Scholar
Bradford, K., Deynze, N., Gutterson, N., Parrot, W. and Strauss, S., “Regulating Transgenic Crops Sensibly: Lessons from Plant Breeding, Biotechnology, and Genomics,” Nature Biotechnology 23, no. 4 (2005): 439–444; see Jaffe, , supra note 90; McElroy, D., “Sustaining Agbiotechnology through Lean Times,” Nature Biotechnology 21, no. 9 (2003): 996-1002; Miller, H. and Conko, G., “Agricultural Biotechnology: Overregulated and Underappreciated,” Issues in Science and Technology 21, no 2 (2005): 76-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See McElroy, , supra note 96.Google Scholar
Schimmelpfennig, D., Pray, C. E. and Brennen, M. F., “The Impact of Seed Industry Concentration on Innovation: A Study of U.S. Biotech Market Leaders,” Agricultural Economics 30, no. 2 (2004): 157–167. See Bradford, K. et al., supra note 96; Jaffe, , supra note 90; McElroy, , supra note 96; Miller, and Conko, , supra note 96; Redenbaugh, K. and McHughen, A., “Regulatory Challenges Reduce Opportunities for Horticultural Biotechnology,” California Agriculture 58, no. 2 (2004): 106–111; Kingsbury, D. T., “A View of North American Regulations: Their Aims and Effects on the Biotechnology Industry,” Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 64, no. 3 (1995): 299-300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kalaitzandonakes, , supra note 87.Google Scholar
See Jaffe, , supra note 90.Google Scholar
See Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, supra note 23.Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Public Sentiment about Genetically Modified Food, prepared by Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Washington, D.C., 2001, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public_Opinion/Food_and_Biotechnology/survey3–01.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, U.S. Consumer Opinion Divided: An Overview of 2004 Findings, Washington, D.C., 2004, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public_Opinion/Food_and_Biotechnology/2004overview.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Public Sentiment about Genetically Modified Food, Washington, D.C., 2005, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public_Opinion/Food_and_Biotechnology/2005summary.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, supra note 23.Google Scholar
Hallman, W. K. et al., Public Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study of American Knowledge and Opinion, Food Policy Institute Report, RR-1003-004, Food Policy Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, 2003, available at <http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/National-Study2003.pdf> (last visited May 28, 2009).Google Scholar
Priest, S. H., “U.S. Public Opinion Divided over Biotechnology?” Nature Biotechnology 18, no. 9 (2000): 939–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See id., at 110. Harris Interactive, “Genetically Modified Foods and Crops: Public Still Divided on Benefits and Risks,” Harris Poll, 49, July 2004, available at <http://www.hams-interactive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=478> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
Priest, S. H., “Misplaced Faith: Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology Development,” Science Communication 23, no. 2 (2001): 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasubramanian, S. K. and Moon, W., “Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-pay a Premium for Non-GM Foods in the U.S. and U.K.,” Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics 4, nos. 3–4 (2001): 221–331; Fischoff, B. and Fischoff, I., “Public's Opinion About Biotechnology,” Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics 4, nos. 3-4 (2001): 155-162; Lang, J. T. and Hallman, W. K., “Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States,” Risk Analysis 25, no. 5 (2005): 1241-1251; Priest, , supra note 110; Frewer, L., “Societal Issues and Public Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Foods,” Trends in Food Science and Technology 14, nos. 5-8 (2003): 319-332; Hossain, F., Onyango, B., Schilling, B. J. and Hallman, W. K., “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology and Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food,” Journal of Food Distribution Research 34, no. 3 (2003): 36-50.Google Scholar
See Lang, and Hallman, , supra note 114.Google Scholar
See Siegrist, et al., supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Lang, and Hallman, , supra note 114.Google Scholar
See Priest, , supra note 110.Google Scholar
See Lang, and Hallman, , supra note 114.Google Scholar
See Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, supra note 23.Google Scholar
See Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, supra note 72; National Research Council, supra note 25.Google Scholar
See Jaffe, , supra note 90.Google Scholar
Priest, S. H., supra note 110; Blaine, K., Kamaldeen, S. and Powell, D., “Public Perceptions of Biotechnology,” Journal of Food Science 67, no. 9 (2002): 3200–3208.Google Scholar
New Thoughts for Food: Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards Food: Final Report (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Ipsos-Reid, 2001), available at <http://www.agbioforum.org/v4n34/v4n34a05-powell.htm> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, CVM letter to University of Illinois (October 3, 2003), available at <http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/UILetter.htm> (last visited May 28, 2009).+(last+visited+May+28,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, supra note 23.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., “Perception of Risk,” Science 236, no. 4788 (1987): 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kuzma, and, Besley, , supra note 28.Google Scholar
See Berg, , supra note 41, at 313.Google Scholar
See Jaffe, , supra note 65.Google Scholar
See Kuzma, and Besley, , supra note 28.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Siegrist, et al., supra note 2.Google Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Initiatives: Strengthening Science-Based Regulation,” May 3, 2000, available at <http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/0058.html> (last visited August 31, 2009).+(last+visited+August+31,+2009).>Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note15.Google Scholar
See Kuzma, et al., supra note 43.Google Scholar
Clemen, R. T. and Reilly, T., Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools Suite Update, 1st ed. (Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Resource Center, 2001): at 315.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Announces Proposal and Draft Guidance for Food Developed through Biotechnology,” January 17, 2001, available at <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/hhbioen3.html> (last visited September 30, 2008).+(last+visited+September+30,+2008).>Google Scholar
See Macoubrie, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Kuzma, , supra note 27; Davies, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J. and Kokotovich, A., “Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology,” Risk Analysis 28, no. 4 (2008):1081–1098.Google Scholar
See Wilsdon, and Willis, , supra note 40.Google Scholar
Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and OSTP Assessment: Case Studies of Environmental Regulations for Biotechnology,” Washington D.C., 2001, available at <http://ostp.gov/html/012201.html> (last visited May 28, 2009).+(last+visited+May+28,+2009).>Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, “Nanotechnology: A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force,” July 25, 2007, available at <http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.html> (last visited September 30, 2007).+(last+visited+September+30,+2007).>Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency, “Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program,” Federal Register 73, no. 18 (2008): 4861–4866.Google Scholar
See Davies, , supra note 1.Google Scholar