Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Precautionary Principle and the Risks of Modern Agri-Biotechnology

  • Chapter
Genetic Democracy

Part of the book series: International Library Of Ethics, Law, And The New Medicine ((LIME,volume 37))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ahteensuu, Marko (2007), “Weak and Strong Interpretations of thePrecautionary Principle in the Risk Management of ModernBiotechnology”, in Bammé, Arno; Getzinger, Günter; Wieser, Bernhard (eds.), Year Book of the Institute forAdvanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society, Profil, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahteensuu, Marko (2006), “Understanding Causes of the Debate onthe Precautionary Principle in the Risk Governance of AgriculturalBiotechnology”, in Andersson, Kjell (ed.), Valdor 2006:Values in Decisions on Risk (Conference Proceedings), Stockholm:552–557. (Also inhttp://www.congrex.com/valdor2006/papers/80_Ahteensuu.pdf.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, Daniel (1991), “Scientific Uncertainty and thePrecautionary Principle”, Environment, 33 (7): 4–5,43–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja (1994), “The Precautionary Principlein Germany: Enabling Government”, in O’Riordan, Tim; Cameron,James (eds.), Interpreting the Precautionary Principle,Earthscan, London: 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, James & Wade-Gery, Will (1995), “AddressingUncertainty: Law, Policy and the Development of the PrecautionaryPrinciple”, in Dente, Bruno (ed.), Environmental Policy inSearch of New Instruments, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, E. Ann & Lehman, Hugh (2001), “Assessment of GM Cropsin Commercial Agriculture”, Journal of Agricultural andEnvironmental Ethics, 14 (1): 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEC = Commission of European Communities (2000), Communication on the Precautionary Principle.

    Google Scholar 

  • CPB = Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention onBiological Diversity (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Domingo, Jose L. (2000), “Health Risks of GM Foods: Many Opinionsbut Few Data”, Science 288 (9th June): 1748–1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECNH = Swiss Ethics Committee on Non-Human Gene Technology (2003),Gene Technology for Food: Ethical Considerations for theMarketing of Genetically Modified Foodstuffs and Animal Feed.

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA = European Environment Agency (2001), Late Lessons fromEarly Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000, inhttp://reports.eea.europa.eu/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer 64.3.: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005:Patterns and Trends (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer 58.0.: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002(2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • FEC = Food Ethics Council (2003), Engineering Nutrition: GMCrops for Global Justice? inhttp://foodethicscouncil.org/files/gmnutrition.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnish Genetic Engineering Act (Geenitekniikkalaki)(2004/847 [1995/377]).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, Kenneth & Vecchia, Paolo & Repacholi, Michael H.(2000), “Science and the Precautionary Principle”, Science(May 12th): 979–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard, Olivier (1997), “Introduction générale”, inGodard, Olivier (ed.), Le Principe de Précaution dans laConduite des Affaires Humaines, Coéditions INRA, MSH etAssociation Natures, Sciences, Société-Dialogues.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goklany, Indur M. (2001), The Precautionary Principle: ACritical Appraisal of Environment Risk Assessment, CatoInstitute, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, John D. & Hsia, Susan (2002), “Europe’s PrecautionaryPrinciple: Promise and Pitfalls”, Journal of Risk Research5 (4): 371–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, Sven Ove (1997), “The Limits of Precaution”,Foundations of Science 2 (2): 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, Soren & Harris, John (1999), “Precautionary PrincipleStifles Discovery”, Nature 400 (July 29th): 398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISAAA = International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-BiotechApplications, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GMCrops: 2005 (Executive Summary, Brief 34), inhttp://www.isaaa.org

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinke, Andreas; Dreyer, Marion; Renn, Ortwin; Stirling, Andrew& Zwanenberg, Patrick van (2006), “Precautionary RiskRegulation in European Governance”, Journal of RiskResearch 9 (4): 373–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Les; Carr, Susan & Wield, David (2005), “EuropeanUnion Regulation of Agri-Biotechnology: Precautionary Linksbetween Science, Expertise and Policy”, Science and PublicPolicy 32 (4): 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson, Neil A. (2002), “Formulating the PrecautionaryPrinciple”, Environmental Ethics 24: 263–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson, Neil A. (1999), “The Precautionary Principle, theCatastrophe Argument, and Pascal’s Wager”, Journal of Endsand Means 4: 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, Gary E. (2001), “The Precautionary Principle: An‘Unprincipled’ Approach to Biotechnology Regulation”, Journal of Risk Research 4 (2): 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Philippe H. (1997), “If You Don’t Know How to Fix it,Please Stop Breaking It!”, Foundations of Science 2:263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthee, Mariëlle & Vermersch, Dominique (2000), “Are thePrecautionary Principle and the International Trade of GeneticallyModified Organisms Reconcilable”, Journal of Agriculturaland Environmental Ethics 12: 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Julian (2000), “Defining the Precautionary Principle”,in Morris, Julian (ed.), Rethinking Risk and thePrecautionary Principle, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myhr, Anne Ingeborg & Traavik, Terje (2003), “Genetically Modified (GM) Crops: Precautionary Science and Conflicts ofInterests”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics16: 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netherwood, Trudy; Martín-Orúe, Susana M.; O’Donnell,Anthony G.; Gockling, Sally; Graham, Julia; Mathers, John C. &Gilbert, Harry J. (2004), “Assessing the Survival of TransgenicPlant DNA in the Human Gastrointestinal Tract”, NatureBiotechnology 22 (2): 204–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nollkaemper, Andre (1996), ‘ “What You Risk Reveals What YouValue’ and Other Dilemmas Encountered in the Legal Assaults onRisks”, in Freestone, David & Hey, Ellen (eds.), ThePrecautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge ofImplementation, Kluwer Law International, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC=National Research Council’s Committee on the InstitutionalMeans for Assessment of Risks to Public Health (1983), RiskAssessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process,National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perreten, Vincent; Schwarz, Franziska; Cresta, Luana; Boeglin,Marianne; Dasen, Gottfried & Teuber, Michael (1997),“Antibiotic Resistance Spread in Food”, Nature 389 (23rdOctober): 801–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, Ortwin (1992), “Concepts of Risk: A Classification”, in Krimsky, Sheldon & Golding, Dominic (eds.) Social Theoriesof Risk, London, Praeger: 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandin, Per (1999), “Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle”,Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5: 889–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schomberg, Rudolf von (2006), “The Normative Basis of thePrecautionary Principle”, in Andersson, Kjell (ed.), Valdor2006: Values in Decisions on Risk (Conference Proceedings),Stockholm: 11–18. (Also inhttp://www.congrex.com/valdor2006/papers/3_von_Schomberg.pdf)

    Google Scholar 

  • Second International Conference on the Protection of theNorth Sea (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • SEHN = Science and Environment Health Network, http://www.sehn.org(1st May 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, Kristin (1985), Risk Analysis and ScientificMethod: Methodological and Ethical Problems with Evaluating SocietalHazards, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, Allison A.; Andow, David A.; Gepts, Paul.; Hallerman, Eric M.; Power, Alison; Tiedje, James M. & Wolfenbarger, L. LaReesa (2005),“Genetically Engineered Organisms and the Environment:Current Status and Recommendations”, Ecological Applications15 (2): 377–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soule, Edward (2002), “Assessing the Precautionary Principle inthe Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms”, International Journal of Biotechnology 4 (1): 18–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spök, Armin; Gaugitsch, Helmut; Laffer, Sylvia; Pauli,Gabrielle; Saito, Hirohisa; Sampson, Hugh; Sibanda, Elopy; Thomas,Wayne; van Hage, Marianne & Valenta, Rudolf (2005),“Suggestions for the Assessment of the Allergenic Potential ofGenetically Modified Organisms”, International Archives ofAllergy and Immunology 137: 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, Chauncey (2003), “The Precautionary Principle Versus RiskAnalysis”, Risk Analysis 23 (1): 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, Andy (2004), “Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: SomeInstrumental Implications from the Social Sciences”, in Berkhout,Frans; Leach, Melissa & Scoones, Ian (eds.), NegotiatingChange: New Perspectives from Social Science, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, Andy (2002), “The Precautionary Principle in Scienceand Technology”, in O’Riordan, Tim; Cameron, James & Jordan,Andrew (eds.), Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle,Cameron May, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streiffer, Robert & Hedemann, Thomas (2005), “The PoliticalImport of Intrinsic Objections to Genetically Modified Food”,The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (2):191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. (2005), Laws of Fear: Beyond thePrecautionary Principle, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, Joel A. (2003), “Precautionary Assessment: A Frameworkfor Integrating Science, Uncertainty, and Preventative Policy”,in Tickner, Joel A. (ed.), Precaution, Environmental Science,and Preventive Public Policy, Island Press, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgensen, Helge & Seifert, Franz (2000), “Austria: PrecautionaryBlockage of Agricultural Biotechnology”, Journal of Risk Research 3: 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trouwborst, Arie (2002), Evolution and Status of thePrecautionary Principle in International Law, Kluwer LawInternational, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Derek & Hartzell, Lauren (2004), “The Lack of Clarityin the Precautionary Principle”, Environmental Values 13:449–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCED = Rio Declaration on Environment and Development(United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio deJaneiro, 3rd–14th June 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • VanderZwaag, David (2002), “The Precautionary Principle andMarine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides”, Ocean Development & International Law 33: 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, Sean A. & Morris, Michael C. (2005), “Risks Associatedwith Genetic Modification: An Annotated Bibliography of PeerReviewed Natural Science Publications”, Journal ofAgricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 157–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, Rick & Ervin, David E. (2006), ”Precaution as anApproach to Technology Development: The Case of TransgenicCrops”, Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (2):153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Jonathan B. & Rogers, Michael D. (2002), “Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe”, Journal of RiskResearch 5: 317–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, Aaron (1996), But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide toEnvironmental Health and Safety Issues, Harvard University Press,Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger, L. LaReesa & Phifer, Paul R. (2000), “TheEcological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants”,Science 290 (December 15th): 2088–2093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Charter for Nature (United Nations General Assembly1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • 2001/18/EC = Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament andof the Council (2001) on the Deliberate Release into theEnvironment of Genetically Modified Organisms and RepealingCouncil Directive 90/220/EEC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy at the University of Turku, Finland

    Marko Ahteensuu

Authors
  1. Marko Ahteensuu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Turku, Finland

    Veikko Launis  & Juha Räikkä  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ahteensuu, M. (2008). The Precautionary Principle and the Risks of Modern Agri-Biotechnology. In: Launis, V., Räikkä, J. (eds) Genetic Democracy. International Library Of Ethics, Law, And The New Medicine, vol 37. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6212-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6212-4_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6205-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6212-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation