Advertisement

Summary: Key Features of the General Framework

  • M. DreyerEmail author
  • O. Renn
  • A. Ely
  • A. Stirling
  • E. Vos
  • F. Wendler
Chapter
Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 15)

European food safety governance is an evolving system. With the advent of strong pressures and many associated recent reforms, new challenges are posed for implementation. Demanding questions are raised over the means to achieve more practical and effective cooperation between diverse actors in regulatory decision-making processes. Our own research into this field began by observing the special characteristics of food regulation and risk governance and the dynamic nature of the changes which these have undergone in Europe since the mid 1990s. Shaken by a series of safety scares and controversies, the European food governance system is undergoing a far-reaching process of review and reform – which already entails powerful imperatives for greater stakeholder involvement and more deliberate attention to uncertainty. In the hope of contributing constructively to this process, the present General Framework for the Precautionary and Inclusive Governance of Food Safetyis intended to offer a...

Keywords

Food Safety Stakeholder Representation Consensus Conference Round Table Public Hearing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References (Part 1)

  1. Ad hoc Commission “Neuordnung der Verfahren und Strukturen zur Risikobewertung und Standardsetzung im gesundheitlichen Umweltschutz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland”. (2003). Abschlussbericht über die Arbeiten der Risikokommission. München: Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz.Google Scholar
  2. Alemanno, A. (2001). Le principe de précaution en droit communautaire. Stratégie de gestion ou risque d’atteinte au marché intérieur. Revue du droit de l’Union Européenne, 4, 917–940.Google Scholar
  3. Alemanno A. (2008). The European food safety authority at five. European Food and Feed Law Review 1 2–24, electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1095703
  4. Amy, D. J. (1983). Environmental mediation: an alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sciences, 15, 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ansell, C., & Vogel, D. (Eds.). (2006). What’s the Beef?: The contested governance of European food safety. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Armour, A. (1995). The citizen’s jury model of public participation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation. evaluating new models for environmental discourse (pp. 175–188). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Designing risk communication: completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes (Part 1). Risk Analysis, 14(5), 779–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bacow, L. S., & Wheeler, M. (1984). Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  9. Bandle, T. (2007). Tolerability of risk: the regulator’s story. In F. Boulder, D. Slavin, R. Löfstedt (Eds.), The tolerability of risk: a new framework for risk management (pp. 93–104). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  10. Baram, M. S. (1984). The right to know and the duty to disclose occupational hazard information. American Journal of Public Health, 74, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barr, C. (1996). Fear not the art of risk communication. Journal of Management in Engineering, 12(1), 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society toward a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity. British Journal of Sociology, 51, 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bennett, P. G., & Calman, K. C. (Eds.). (1999). Risk communication and public health: policy, science and participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bergström, C. F. (2005). Comitology–delegation of powers in the european union and the committee system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. BfR (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung). (2005). ERiC – Development of a multi-stage risk communication program. In R. Hertel & G. Henseler (Eds.), BfR-Wissenschaft 02/2005. Berlin: Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).Google Scholar
  17. Böschen, S., Dressel, K., Schneider, M., Viehöver, W., Wastian, M. (2005). A review of institutional arrangements for food safety regulation in Germany. Food safety: administration of impossibilities or expression of modern and efficient governance?, Deliverable 5.2.4 of Subproject 5 of the EC Framework Programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’. Munich: Süddeutsches Institut für empirische Sozialforschung (SINE).Google Scholar
  18. Boholm, A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bostrom, A., Atman, C. J., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Evaluating risk communications: completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 789–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bunting, C., Renn, O., Florin, M. -V., & Cantor, R. (2007). Introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. The John Liner Review, 21(2), 7–26.Google Scholar
  22. Burns, T. R., & Ueberhorst, R. (1988). Creative democracy: systematic conflict resolution and policymaking in a world of high science and technology. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  23. Chess, C., Hance, B. J., & Sandman, P. M. (1989). Planning dialogue with communities: a risk communication workbook, environmental communication research program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  24. Christiansen, T., & Larsson, T. (2007). The role of committees in the policy-process of the European Union. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). (2005). Procedural Manual (fifteenth edition), Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Rome: World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  26. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2000a). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1, 2 February 2000. Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2000b). White Paper on Food Safety, COM (1999) 719 final, 12 January 2000. Brussels.Google Scholar
  28. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2001a). European Governance. A White Paper, COM 428 final, 25 July 2001. Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2001b). White Paper. Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy (presented by the Commission), COM (2001) 88 final, 27.2.2001. Brussels.Google Scholar
  30. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2003). Commission Regulation (EC) No 1304/2003 of 11 July 2003 on the procedure applied by the European Food Safety Authority to requests for scientific opinions referred to it. Official Journal of the European Union, L 185/6, 24.7.2003.Google Scholar
  31. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2006). Commission Regulation (EC) No 575/2006 EC of 7 April 2006, amending Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the number and names of the permanent Scientific Panels of the European Food Safety Authority. Official Journal of the European Communities, 8.4.2006, L 100/3.Google Scholar
  32. Corcelle, G. (2001). La perspective communautaire du principe de précaution. Revue du marche commun et de l'Union Européenne, 450, 447–454.Google Scholar
  33. Covello, V. T. (1983). The perception of technological risks: a literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Covello, V. T. (1992). Trust and credibility in risk communcation. Health and Environmental Digest, 6(1), 1–3.Google Scholar
  35. Covello, V. T., & Sandman, P. M. (2001). Risk communication evolution and revolution. In A. Wolbarst (Ed.), Solutions to an Environment in Peril (pp. 164–178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Covello, V. T., Slovic, P., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). Risk communication: a review of the literature. Risk Abstracts, 3(4), 172–182.Google Scholar
  37. Covello, V. T., Sandman, P., & Slovic, P. (1988). Risk communication, risk statistics and risk comparisons: a manual for plant managers. Washington, DC: Chemical Manufactures Association.Google Scholar
  38. Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M. (Eds.). (1989). Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of government and non-government organizations. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  39. Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizen panels: a new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 46, 170–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. DeFleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1982). Theories of mass communication. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  41. Dehousse, R. (1994). Community competences: are there limits to growth? In R. Dehousse (Ed.), Europe after Maastricht. An Ever Closer Union? (pp. 124–125). Munich: Law Books in Europe.Google Scholar
  42. De Jonge, J., van Kleef, E., Frewer, L. J., & Renn, O. (2007). Perception of risk, benefit and trust associated with consumer food choice. In L. J. Frewer, & H. van Trijp (Eds.), Understanding consumers of food products (pp. 534–557). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.Google Scholar
  43. De Marchi, B. (1995). Environmental problems, policy decisions and risk communication: what is the role for social sciences? Science and Public Policy, 22, 157–161.Google Scholar
  44. De Sadeleer, N. (2001a). L’émergence du principe de précaution. Journal des tribunaux, 6010, 393–401.Google Scholar
  45. De Sadeleer, N. (2001b). Le statut juridique du principe de précaution en droit communautaire: du slogan à la règle. Cahiers de droit européen, 79–120.Google Scholar
  46. De Sadeleer, N. (2006). The precautionary principle in EC health and environmental law. European Law Journal, 12(2), 139–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. DG SANCO. (2005). Maximising the contribution of science to European health and safety, A DG SANCO Discussion Paper. Brussels, July 2005. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/reports/science_health_safety_en.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2006.
  48. DG SANCO. (2007). General food law – principles. http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/foodlaw/principles/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 March 2007.
  49. Dienel, P. C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports on technological projects. In C. Vlek, & G. Cvetkovich (Eds.), Social decision methodology for technological projects (pp. 133–151). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  50. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, Official Journal of the European Communities, 17.4.2001, L 106/1.Google Scholar
  51. Douma, W. T. (2002). The Precautionary Principle. Its Application in International, European and Dutch Law (Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, 2002).Google Scholar
  52. Dressel, K., Böschen, S., Schneider, M., Viehöver, W., Wastian, M., & Wendler, F. (2006). Food safety regulation in Germany. In E. Vos, F. Wendler (Eds.), Food safety regulation in Europe: a comparative institutional analysis (Series Ius Commune) (pp. 287–330). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  53. Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Borkhart, K., & Ortleb, J. (2006). Institutional re-Arrangements in European food safety governance: a comparative perspective. In E. Vos, F. Wendler (Eds.), Food safety regulation in Europe: a comparative institutional analysis (Series Ius Commune) (pp. 9–64). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  54. Dreyer, M., Renn, O., & Borkhart, K. (2006). A summary report of a workshop with industry representatives, for the EC framework programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’, contribution to Subproject 5, 19 October 2006. Stuttgart: DIALOGIK.Google Scholar
  55. Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Ely, A., Stirling, A., Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (2007). A general framework for the precautionary and inclusive governance of food safety, for the EC framework programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’, Interim Report of Subproject 5, 4 May 2007. Stuttgart: DIALOGIK.Google Scholar
  56. Dreyer, M., Renn, O., & Borkhart, K. (2007). A summary report of a workshop with risk assessors (EU-Member State level), for the EC framework programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’, contribution to Subproject 5, 15 January 2007. Stuttgart: DIALOGIK.Google Scholar
  57. Drottz-Sjöberg, B. -M. (2003). Current trends in risk communication theory and practice. Oslo: Directory of Civil Defense and Emergency Planning.Google Scholar
  58. EFSA. (2004a). Making risk assessment more transparent – information note to the advisory forum, AF 08.04.2004.Google Scholar
  59. EFSA. (2004b). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the use of antibiotic resistance genes as marker genes in genetically modified plants, Question No. EFSA-Q-2003-109. The EFSA Journal, 48, 1–18.Google Scholar
  60. EFSA. (2005). Opinion of the scientific panel on contaminants in the food chain on a request from the European parliament related to the safety assessment of wild and farmed fish, Question No. EFSA-Q-2004-22. The EFSA Journal, 236, 1–118.Google Scholar
  61. EFSA. (2006a). Transparency in risk assessment carried out by EFSA: guidance document on procedural aspects, prepared by a working group consisting of members of the Scientific Committee and various EFSA Departments, endorsed on 11 April 2006 by the Scientific Committee. The EFSA Journal, 353, 1–16.Google Scholar
  62. EFSA (2006b). Summary report of EFSA scientific colloquium 6: Risk-benefit-analysis of foods: methods and approaches. Tabiano, Italy, 13–14 July 2006.Google Scholar
  63. Ely, A., & Stirling, A. (2006). A summary report of a workshop with NGO representatives, for the EC FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’, contribution to Subproject 5, 2 November 2006. Brighton: University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  64. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Omen, G. S., Kessler, A. C., Anderson, N. T., et al. (1997). Framework for environmental health risk management, US Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Final Report Vol. 1. Washington: EPA.Google Scholar
  65. ESTO (2000). On science and precaution in the management of technological risk. In A. Stirling & V. Calenbuhr (Eds.), Final summary report of ‘technological risk and the management of uncertainty’ Project. Seville: European Scientific Technology Observatory (ESTO).Google Scholar
  66. Faure, M. G., & Vos, E. (2003). Juridische afbakening van het voorzorgsbeginsel: Mogelijkheden en grenzen, Gezondheidsraad. The Hague: Dutch Health Council.Google Scholar
  67. Fearn-Banks, K. (1996). Crisis communications: a case book approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Forrester, I., & Hanekamp, J. C. (2006). Precaution, Science and Jurisprudence: a Test Case. Journal of Risk Research, 9(4), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Foster, C. E. (2008). Public opinion and the interpretation of the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Journal of International Economic Law, 11(2), 427–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Freese, W., & Schubert, D. (2004). Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 21, 299–324.Google Scholar
  74. Freudenburg, W. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Gabbi, S. (2007). The interaction between risk assessors and risk managers. The case of the European Commission and of the European Food Safety Authority. European Food and Feed Law Review, 3, 126–135.Google Scholar
  76. Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischler, C., Hampel, J., et al. (2006). Eurobarometer 64.3: Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, Report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research.Google Scholar
  77. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Boston MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Goldschmidt, R., Renn, O., Köppel, S. (2008). European citizens’ consultations project, Final Evaluation Report. Stuttgart Contributions to Risk and Sustainability Research, No. 8. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  79. Graham, J. D., & Wiener, J. B. (1995). Risk versus risk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Gray, P. C. R., Stern, R. M., & Biocca, M. (Eds.). (1998). Communicating about risks to environment and health in Europe, World Health Organization regional office for Europe in collaboration with the Centre for Environmental and Risk Management, University of East Anglia, UK. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  81. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: a new perspective for environmental negotiation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., & Wynne, B. (2000). Wising up: the public and new technology. Lancaster: CSEC.Google Scholar
  83. Gutteling, J. M., & Wiegman, O. (1996). Exploring risk communication. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  84. Hagendijk, R., & Irwin, A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Hammond, J., Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  86. Hance, B. J., Chess, C., & Sandman, P. M. (1988). Improving dialogue with communities: a risk communication manual for government, environmental communication research program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  87. Harremoës, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., et al. (European Environment Agency) (2001). Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle, 1896–2000, Environmental Issue Report, No. 22. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  88. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2001). Reducing risks, protecting people: HSE's decision-making process. London: HSE.Google Scholar
  89. IRGC. (2005). White paper on risk governance: towards an integrative approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.Google Scholar
  90. Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk, uncertainty and rational action. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  91. Jasanoff, S. (1993). Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 13(2), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature. United States: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Jensen, J. K. K., & Sandøe, P. (2002). Food safety and ethics: the interplay between science and values. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(3), 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Joerges, C., & Neyer, J. (2003). Politics, risk management, World Trade Organisation governance and the limits of legalisation. Science and Public Policy, 30, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Joerges, C., & Vos, E. (Eds.). (1999). EU committees: social regulation, law and politics. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  96. Johnson, B. B. (1993). Coping with paradoxes of risk communication: observations and symptoms. Risk Analysis, 13(3), 241–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Joss, S. (1999). Public participation in science and technology policy- and decision-making: ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? Science and Public Policy, 26, 290–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Jungermann, H., & Wiedemann, P. (1995). Risk communication–introduction. European Review of Applied Psychology, 45(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
  99. Jungermann, H., Schuetz, H., & Thuering, M. (1988). Mental models in risk assessment: informing people about drugs. Risk Analysis, 8(1), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Kahlor, L. -A., Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. (2004). Accounting for the complexity of causal explanations in the wake of an environmental risk. Science Communication, 26(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Kasemir, B., Clark, W. C., Gardner, M. T., Jaeger, C. C., Jaeger, J., & Wokaun, A. (2003). Public Participation in Sustainability Science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Kasperson, R. E. (1986). Six propositions for public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6(3), 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Kasperson, R. E., & Palmlund, I. (1988). Evaluating risk communication. In V. T. Covello, D. B. McCallum, M. T. Pavlova (Eds.), Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations (pp. 143–158). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  104. Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1), 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Keeney, R., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). Improving risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6(4), 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Keynes, J. M. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  107. Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based and discourse-based management. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1071–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  109. Knight, A. J., Worosz, M. R., Todd, E. C. D., Bourquin, L. D. (2008). Listeria in raw milk soft cheese: a case study of risk governance in the United States using the IRGC framework. In O. Renn & K. Walker (Eds.), Global risk governance (pp. 179–220). Berlin and Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ladeur, K. -H. (2003). The introduction of the precautionary principle into EU law: a pyrrhic victory for environmental and public health law? Decision-making under conditions of complexity in multi-level political systems. Common Market Law Review, 40(6), 1455–1479.Google Scholar
  111. Latham, J. R., Wilson, A. K., Steinbrecher, R. A. (2006). The mutational consequences of plant transformation. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 1–7.Google Scholar
  112. Lehesranta, S. J., Koistinen, K. M., Massat, N., Davies, H. V., Shepherd, L. V. T., & McNicol, J. W., et al. (2007). Effects of agricultural production systems and their components on protein profiles of potato tubers. Proteomics, 7, 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Leiss, W. (Eds.). (1989). Prospects and Problems in Risk Communication. Waterloo, ON, Canada: University of Waterloo Press.Google Scholar
  114. Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in risk communication practice. In H. Kunreuther, P. Slovic (Eds.), Challenges in risk assessment and risk management: annals of the american academy of political and social science, special issue on risk (pp. 85–94). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  115. Leiss, W. (2004). Effective risk communication practice. Toxicology Letters, 149, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Leiss, W. & Chociolko, C. (1994). Risk and responsibility. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill–Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Lenaerts, K. (1993). Regulating the regulatory process: ‘delegation of powers’ in the European Community. European Law Review, 18, 23–49.Google Scholar
  118. Levidow, L., Carr, S., Wield, D., & von Schomberg, R. (1997). European biotechnology regulation: framing the risk assessment of a herbicide-tolerant crop. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22(4), 472–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. (1983). The confidence gap: business, labor, and government in the public mind. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  120. Loasby, B. J. (1976). Choice, complexity and ignorance. Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Löfstedt, R. (1997). Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems, Working Paper, No. 92. Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg.Google Scholar
  122. Löfstedt, R. (2001). Risk communication and management in the twenty-first century. International Public Management Journal, 73, 335–346.Google Scholar
  123. Löfstedt, R. (2003). Risk communication: pitfalls and promises. European Review, 11(3), 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Löfstedt, R. (2005). Risk management in post trust societies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Luhmann, N. (1980). Trust and power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  126. Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological communication. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  127. Luhmann, N. (1990). Technology, environment, and social risk: a systems perspective. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 223–231.Google Scholar
  128. Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: a sociological theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  129. Lundgren, R. E. (1994). Risk communication: a handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. Columbus, OH: Battelle.Google Scholar
  130. Lynn, F. M. (1990). Public participation in risk management decisions: the right to define, the right to know, and the right to act. Risk-Issues in Health and Safety, 1, 95–101.Google Scholar
  131. MacIlwain, C. (2005). US launches probe into sales of unapproved transgenic corn. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature03570.Google Scholar
  132. Madelin, R. (2007). How Can we Make Food Safety Governance in Europe More Inclusive?, Keynote Speech at the Subproject 5 ‘SAFE FOODS’ Presentation Workshop on 11 May 2007. Brussels: Fondation Universitaire.Google Scholar
  133. Majone, G. (2002). Delegation of regulatory powers in a mixed polity. European Law Journal, 3, 330–331.Google Scholar
  134. Marchant, E., & Mosman, K. L. (2004). Arbitrary and Capricious: the precautionary principle in the European courts. Washington DC: AEI.Google Scholar
  135. Masson-Matthee, M. D. (2007). The Codex Alimentarius Commission and its standards. The Hague: Asser.Google Scholar
  136. Mays, C., Jahnich, M., & Poumadère, M. (2005). A review of institutional arrangements for food safety regulation in France, Deliverable 5.2.5 of Subproject 5 of the EC Framework Programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’. Cachan: Institut Symlog.Google Scholar
  137. Mays, C., Jahnich, M., & Poumadère, M. (2006). Food safety regulation in France. In E. Vos, F. Wendler (Eds.), Food safety regulation in Europe: a comparative institutional analysis (Series Ius Commune) (pp. 217–285). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  138. Miller, H. I., & Conko, G. (2001). Precaution without principle. Nature Biotechnology, 19(4), 302–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Millstone, E. (2000). Recent developments in EU food policy: institutional adjustments or fundamental reforms? Zeitschrift für das gesamte Lebenmittelrecht, 27(6), 815–829.Google Scholar
  140. Millstone, E., & van Zwanenberg, P. (2002). The evolution of food safety policy-making institutions in the UK, EU and Codex Alimentarius. Social Policy Administration, 36(6), 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Millstone, E., van Zwanenberg, P., Marris, C., Levidow, L., & Torgersen, H. (2004). Science in trade disputes related to potential risks: comparative case studies. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  142. Moore, C. (1996). The mediation process. Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  143. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Lave, L., & Atman, C. (1992). Communicating risk to the public. Environmental Science and Technology, 26(11), 2049–2056.Google Scholar
  144. Morgan, M. G., Fishhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atmann, C. J. (2001). Risk communication: a mental model approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  145. Mulligan, J., McCoy, E., & Griffiths, A. (1998). Principles of communicating risks: the macleod institute for environmental analysis. Alberta, Canada: University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  146. National Research Council (NRC). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  147. National Research Council (NRC). (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  148. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  149. OECD. (2002). Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management, Series on Risk Management, No. 16, prepared by O. Renn, H. Kastenholz, W. Leiss, Environment, Health and Safety Publications. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  150. OECD. (2003). Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, No. 27: Consensus Document on the Biology of Zea Mays Subsp. Mays (Maize), ENV/JM/MONO(2003)11. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  151. Omenn, G. S. (2003). On the significance of “the Red Book” in the evolution of risk assessment and risk management. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9, 1155–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Owen, H. (2001). Open space technology. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  153. Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. (1987). The emergence of risk communication studies: social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12(3–4), 4–10.Google Scholar
  154. Powell, D. A., Blaine, K., Morris, S., & Wilson, J. (2003). Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn. British Food Journal, 105(10), 700–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit/UK Cabinet Office (2002). Risk: improving government’s capability to handle risk and uncertainty. London: UK Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  156. Public Health Reports special issue on The Precautionary Principle, 117(6), November/December 2002.Google Scholar
  157. Ravetz, J. (1999). What is post-normal science. Futures, 31(7), 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, Official Journal of the European Communities, 14.2.97, No L 43/1.Google Scholar
  159. Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, Official Journal of the European Communities, 1.2.2002, L 31/1 [General Food Law].Google Scholar
  160. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, Official Journal of the European Union, 18.10.2003, L 268/1.Google Scholar
  161. Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC, Official Journal of the European Union, 18.10.2003, L 268/24.Google Scholar
  162. Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC, Official Journal of the European Union, 13.11.2004, L 338/4.Google Scholar
  163. Renn, O. (1999). Diskursive Verfahren der Technikfolgenabschätzung. In T. Petermann & R. Coenen (Eds.), Technikfolgenabschätzung in Deutschland. Bilanz und Perspektiven (pp. 115–130). Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  164. Renn, O. (2004). The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. In T. L. McDaniels, M. J. Small (Eds.), Risk analysis and society: an interdisciplinary characterization of the field (pp. 289–366). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  165. Renn, O. (2007). The risk handling chain. In F. Boulder, D. Slavin, R. Löfstedt (Eds.), The tolerability of risk. A new framework for risk management (pp. 21–74). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  166. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  167. Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In R. Kasperson, & P. J. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating Risk to the Public (pp. 175–218). Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  168. Renn, O. & Walker, K. (2008). Lessons learned: a re-assessment of the IRGC framework on risk governance. In O. Renn & K. Walker (Eds.), Global risk governance (pp. 331–367). Berlin and Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. C., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: a three-step-procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Renn, O., Müller-Herold, U., Stirling, A., Dreyer, M., Klinke, A., & Losert, C., et al. (2003). The application of the precautionary principle in the European Union, Final Report of EU-Project HPV1-CT-2001–00001, PRECAUPRI. Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg.Google Scholar
  171. Renn, O., Carius, R., Kastenholz, H., Schulze, M. (2005). EriK – Entwicklung eines mehrstufigen Verfahrens der Risikokommunikation. In R. F. Hertel & G. Henseler (Eds.). Berlin: Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).Google Scholar
  172. RISKO, Mitteilungen der Kommission für Risikobewertung des Kantons Basel-Stadt (2000). Seit 10 Jahren beurteilt die RISKO die Tragbarkeit von Risiken. Bulletin, 3, 2–3.Google Scholar
  173. Rogers, C. L. (1999). The importance of understanding audiences. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 179–200). Mahwak, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  174. Rohrmann, B. (1992). The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness. Acta Psychologica, 81(2), 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Rohrmann, B. (1995). Technological risks–perception, evaluation, communication. In R. E. Melchers, & M. G. Stewart (Eds.), Integrated risk assessment: new directions (pp. 7–12). Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar
  176. Rohrmann, B., & Renn, O. (2000). Risk perception research–an introduction. In O. Renn, B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: a survey of empirical studies (pp. 11–54). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  177. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 225(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP). (1998). Twenty-first report: setting environmental standards. London: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.Google Scholar
  179. Sadar, A. J., & Shull, M. D. (2000). Environmental risk communication: principles and practices for industry. Boca Raton: Lewis.Google Scholar
  180. Scott, J. (2004). The precautionary principle before the European courts. In R. Macrory (Ed.), Principles of European environmental law (pp. 51–74). Groningen: Europa Law.Google Scholar
  181. Scott, J. (2007). Commentary on the sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  182. Scott, J., & Vos, E. (2002). The juridification of uncertainty: observations of the ambivalence of the precautionary principle within the EU and the WTO. In C. Joerges, & R. Dehousse (Eds.), Good governance in Europe’s integrated market (pp. 253–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  183. Shackle, G. L. S. (1955). Uncertainty in economics and other reflections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  184. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 220(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Skogstad, G. (2003). Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness?: network governance and GMO Regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(3), 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky, D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  189. Spök, A., Hofer, H., Valenta, R., Kienzl-Plochberger, K., Lehner, P., & Gaugitsch, H. (2003). Toxicological and allergological safety evaluation of GMO. Vienna: Federal Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  190. STARC (2006). Current risk communication practices in selected countries and industries, Deliverable D2, Report by the STARC Consortium to the European Commission. London.Google Scholar
  191. Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A., & Jones, K. (2006). The challenge is to embrace different forms of expertise, to view them as a resource rather than a burden… the received wisdom. opening up expert advice. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  192. Stirling, A. (1999). Risk at a turning point? Journal of Environmental Medicine, 1(3), 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Stirling, A. (2003). Risk, uncertainty and precaution: some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating Change (pp. 33–76). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  194. Stirling, A., Ely, A., Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Vos, E., Wendler, F. (2006). A General Framework for the Precautionary and Inclusive Governance of Food Safety. Accounting for Risks, Uncertainties and Ambiguities in the Appraisal and Management of Food Safety Threats, Working Document produced within Subproject 5 of the EU Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’, 10 October 2006. Sussex: Sussex University.Google Scholar
  195. Stolwijk, J. A. J., & Canny, P. F. (1991). Determinants of public participation in management of technological risks. In M. Shubik (Ed.), Risk, organization, and society (pp. 33–48). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  196. Susskind, L. E., Richardson, J. R., & Hildebrand, K. J. (1978). Resolving environmental disputes. Approaches to intervention, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Cambridge (Environmental Impact Assessment Project): MIT.Google Scholar
  197. Traavik, T. & Heinemann, J. (2007). Genetic engineering and omitted health research: still no answers to ageing questions. TWN Biotechnology and Biosafety Series 7. Third World Network, Malaysia.Google Scholar
  198. Trettin, L., & Musham, C. (2000). Is trust a realistic goal of environmental risk ommunication? Environment and Behavior, 32(3), 410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Trichopoulou, A., Millstone, E., Lang, T., Eames, M., Barling, D., Naska, A., & van Zwanenberg, P. (2000). European Policy on Food Safety. Final Study, Working Document for the European Parliament’s Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel, PE 292.026/Fin.St. Luxembourg: European Parliament. www.europarl.eu.int/dg4/stoa/en/publi/default.htm. Accessed 25 May 2004.
  201. Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. (2005). Paper for Information: ACNFP/72/7 Accidental Cultivation of Bt10 Maize in the USA, http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp_72_7.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2008.
  203. UK Inter-Departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment. (1998). Risk Communication: A Guide to Regulatory Practice. London. www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/ilgra/risk.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2004.
  204. Van den Bossche, P. (2008). The law and policy of the World Trade Organisation: text, cases and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  205. Van der Voet, H., de Mul, A., & van Klaveren, J. D. (2007). A probabilistic model for simultaneous exposure to multiple compounds from food and its use for risk–benefit assessment. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 45(8), 1496–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Van Gerven, W. (2005). The European Union. A polity of states and peoples. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  207. Van Kleef, E., Frewer, L. J., Chryssochoidis, G. M., Houghton, J. R., Korzen-Bohr, S., Krystallis, et al. (2006). Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders: results from a cross-European study. Appetite, 47(1), 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Van Schendelen, M. P. C. M. (Eds.). (1998). EU Committees as Influential Policymakers. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  209. Van Zwanenberg, P., & Millstone, E. (2001). Mad cow disease 1980s–2000: How reassurances undermined precaution. In P. Harremoës (Ed.), Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary prinicple 1896–2000. Environmental Issue Report, No. 22 (pp. 157–167). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  210. van Zwanenberg, P., & Millstone, E. (2005). BSE: risk, science and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. van Zwanenberg, P., & Stirling, A. (2003). Risk and precaution in the US and Europe. Yearbook of European Environmental Law, 3, 43–56.Google Scholar
  212. Vos, E. (1999). EU Committees: the evolution of unforeseen institutional actors in European product regulation. In C. Joerges & E. Vos (Eds.), EU Committees (pp. 19–47). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  213. Vos, E. (2003). Agencies and the European Union. In T. Zwart, L. Verhey (Eds.), Agencies in European and comparative law (pp. 113–147). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  214. Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (Eds.). (2006a). Food safety regulation in Europe: a comparative institutional analysis (Series Ius Commune). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  215. Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (2006b). Food safety regulation at the EU level. In E. Vos, F. Wendler (Eds.), Food safety regulation in Europe: a comparative institutional analysis (Series Ius Commune) pp. 65–138. Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  216. Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (2006c). A summary report of a workshop with risk managers, for the EC Framework Programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’, contribution to Subproject 5, 2 November 2006. Maastricht: Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  217. Vos, E., Ni Ghíollárnath, C., & Wendler, F. (2005). A Review of Institutional Arrangements for European Union Food Safety Regulation, Deliverable 5.2.6 of Subproject 5 of the EC Framework Programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’. Maastricht: Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  218. Webler, T. (1999). The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process. Journal of Risk Research, 2(1), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., & Renn, O. (1991). The Group Delphi: A novel attempt at reducing uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Webler, T., Rakel, H., Renn, O., & Johnson, B. (1995). Eliciting and classifying concerns: a methodological critique. Risk Analysis, 15(3), 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. Wendler, F., & Vos, E. (2008). Stakeholder involvement in EU food safety governance: towards a more open and structured approach? Working Paper for Subproject of the EC Framework Programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’. Maastricht: University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  222. Wiedemann, P. & Schütz, H. (2000). Developing dialogue-based risk communication programs, Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation, No. 79. Jülich: Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik am Forschungszentrums Jülich.Google Scholar
  223. World Trade Organisation (WTO) (2004). M. Martuzzi J. Tickner (Eds.). The Precautionary Principle: Protecting Public Health, the Environment and the Future of our Children. In WTO. Copenhagen:World Trade Organisation (WTO) (2004). The Precautionary Principle: Protecting Public Health, the Environment and the Future of our Children. In M. Martuzzi & J. Tickner (Eds.). Copenhagen: WTO.Google Scholar
  224. Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff et-al (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361–388). London: Thousand Oaks CA.Google Scholar
  225. Yapp, C., Rogers, B., & Klinke, A. (2005). A Review of Institutional Arrangements for Food Safety Regulation in the UK. Deliverable 5.2.2 of Subproject 5 of the EC Framework Programme 6 Integrated Project ‘SAFE FOODS’. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  226. Zimmerman, R. (1987). A process framework for risk communication. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12(3 and 4), 131–137.Google Scholar
  227. Zimmerman, R. & Cantor, R. (2004). State of the art and new directions in risk assessment and risk management: fundamental issues of measurement and management. In T. McDaniels & M. J. Small (Eds.), Risk analysis and society: an interdisciplinary characterization of the field (pp. 451–458). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References for reflective and practical discourse

  1. Benarie, M. (1988). Delphi and Delphilike approaches with special regard to environmental standard setting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 33, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Covello, V. T., & Allen, F. W. (1988). Seven cardinal rules of risk communication, OPA-87–020. Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  3. Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M. (1989). Principles and guidelines for effective risk communication. In V. T. Covello, D. B. McCallum, M. Pavlova (Eds.), (1989), Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of government and non-government organizations (pp. 14–24). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  4. Dürrenberger, G., Kastenholz, H., & Behringer, J. (1999). Integrated assessment focus groups: bridging the gap between science and policy. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hance, B. J., Chess, C., & Sandman, P. M. (1988). Improving dialogue with communities: a risk communication manual for government, Environmental Communication Research Program. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  6. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA). (1998). Risk communication. A guide to regulatory practice. London: Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
  7. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Lundgren, R. E. (1994). Risk communication: a handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle.Google Scholar
  9. Milbrath, L. W. (1981). Citizen surveys as citizen participation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 478–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mulligan, J., McCoy, E., & Griffiths, A. (1998). Principles of communicating risks. the macleod institute for environmental analysis. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
  11. Risikokommission (ad-hoc-Kommission ’Neuordnung der Verfahren und Strukturen zur Risikobewertung und Standardsetzung im gesundheitlichen Umweltschutz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland“) (2003). Abschlussbericht. Munich: Federal Office for Radiation Protection.Google Scholar
  12. Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. UK Department of Health. (1998). Communicating about risks to health: pointers to good practice. London: UK Department of Health.Google Scholar
  14. Webler, T. h., Levine, D., Rakel, H., & Renn, O. (1991). The Group Delphi: a novel attempt at reducing uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39(3), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wiedemann, P., Schütz, H., & Thalmann, A. (2002). Risikobewertung im wissenschaftlichen Dialog. Jülich: Forschungszentrum Jülich.Google Scholar
  16. Agency for Toxic Substances, Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1997). A primer on health risk communication principles and practices. ATSDR.Google Scholar
  17. Amy, D. (1987). The Politics of Environmental Mediation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Andersen, S. (1996). Expertenurteil und gesellschaftlicher Konsens: Ethischer Rat und Konsensuskommissionen in Dänemark. In C. F. Gethmann, L. Honnefelder (Eds.), Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik (pp. 201–208). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Applegate, J. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: the use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decision-making. Indiana Law Journal, 73, 903–912.Google Scholar
  20. Armour, A. (1995). The citizens’ jury model of public participation. In O. Renn, T.h, Webler, P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation. evaluating new models for environmental discourse (pp. 175–188). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Breidenbach, S. (1995). Mediation. Struktur, Chancen und Risiken von Vermittlung im Konflikt. Köln: O. Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. Chekoway, B. (1981). The politics of public hearings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17(4), 566–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chemical Manufacturers’ Association. (1988). Title III community awareness workbook. Washington, D.C.: Chemical Manufacturers’ Association.Google Scholar
  24. Chemical Manufacturers’ Association. (1994). Community advisory panel handbook. Washington, D.C.: Chemical Manufacturers’ Association.Google Scholar
  25. Chess, C. (1988). Encouraging Effective Risk Communication: Suggestions for Agency Management, submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research, Trenton, New Jersey, Environmental Communication Research Program. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  26. Chess, C., Hance, B. J., & Sandman, P. M. (1988). Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide for Government Risk Communication, submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research, Trenton, New Jersey, Environmental Communication Research Program. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  27. Chess, C., Hance, B. J., & Sandman, P. M. (1989). Planning Dialogue with Communities: A Risk Communication Workbook, Environmental Communication Research Program. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  28. Claus, F., & Wiedemann, P. M. (Eds.). (1994). Umweltkonflikte: Vermittlungsverfahren zu ihrer Lösung. Taunusstein: Blottner Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Cohen, N., Chess, C., Lynn, F., & Busenberg, G. (1995). Improving Dialogue: A Case Study of the Community Advisory Panel of Shell Oil Company’s Martinez Manufacturing Complex. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University, Center for Environmental Communication.Google Scholar
  30. Crosby, N. (1995). Citizen Juries: one solution for difficult environmental problems. In O. Renn, T. Webler, P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse (pp. 157–174). Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Dienel, P. C. (1978). Die Planungszelle. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Dürrenberger, G., Kastenholz, H., & Behringer, J. (1999). Integrated assessment focus groups: bridging the gap between science and policy. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. EEI Public Participation Task Force/Creighton, J.L. (1994). Public Participation Manual (2nd Edn.). Palo Alto: Edison Electric Institute (EEI).Google Scholar
  34. Fietkau, H.-J. & Weidner, H. (1992). Mediationsverfahren in der Umweltpolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, B39-40/92, 24–34.Google Scholar
  35. Fiorino, D. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. M. (1993). Das Harvard Konzept. Sachgerecht verhandeln, erfolgreich verhandeln. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  37. Folberg, J., & Taylor, A. (1984). Mediation: a comprehensive guide to resolving conflicts without litigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Gaßner, H., Holznagel, L. M., & Lahl, U. (1992). Mediation. Verhandlungen als Mittel der Konsensfindung bei Umweltstreitigkeiten. Bonn: Economica.Google Scholar
  39. Hance, B. J., Chess, C., & Sandman, P. M. (1988). Improving dialogue with communities: a risk communication manual for government. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University, Environmental Communication Research Program.Google Scholar
  40. Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA). (1998). Risk communication. A guide to regulatory practice. London: Health and Safety Executive.Google Scholar
  41. Joss, S. (1997). Experiences with consensus conferences, Paper at the International Conference on Technology and Democracy, Center for Technology and Culture, University of Oslo, Norway. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  42. Karger, C. R., & Wiedemann, P. M. (1994). Fallstricke und Stolpersteine in Aushandlungsprozessen. In F. Claus, P. M. Wiedemann (Eds.), Umweltkonflikte: Vermittlungsverfahren zu ihrer Lösung pp. 195–214. Taunusstein: Blottner Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Kasperson, R. E. (1986). Six propositions for public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6(3), 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leiss, W. (Ed.). (1989). Prospects and Problems in Risk Communication. Waterloo, ON, Canada: University of Waterloo Press.Google Scholar
  45. McDaniels, T. (1996). The structured value referendum: eliciting preferences for environmental policy alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(2), 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McKechnie, S., & Davies, S. (1999). Consumers and Risk. In P. Bennett, K. Calman (Eds.), Risk Communication and Public Health (pp. 170–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Meyer, R., & Sauter, A. (1999). TA-Projekt “Umwelt und Gesundheit” - Endbericht. TAB-Arbeitsbericht No. 63. Berlin: Büro für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag.Google Scholar
  48. Morgan, M. G., Fishhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atmann, C. J. (2001). Risk communication. A mental model approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Mulligan, J., McCoy, E., & Griffiths, A. (1998). Principles of communicating risks. Alberta: The Macleod Institute for Environmental Analysis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  50. National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  52. Renn, O. (1999). A model for an analytic deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(18), 3049–3055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance. London: Earthscan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Renn, O. & Oppermann, B. (2001). Mediation und kooperative Verfahren im Bereich Planung und Umweltschutz. In Institut für Städtebau (Ed.), Kooperative Planung und Mediation im Konfliktfall (Issue 82, pp. 13-36). Berlin: Deutsche Akademie für Städtebau und Landesplanung.Google Scholar
  55. Renn, O., & Webler, T. h. (1998). Der kooperative Diskurs-Theoretische Grundlagen, Anforderungen, Möglichkeiten. In O. Renn, H. Kastenholz, P. Schild, U. Wilhelm (Eds.), Abfallpolitik im kooperativen Diskurs. Bürgerbeteiligung bei der Standortsuche für eine Deponie im Kanton Aargau pp. 3–103. Zürich: Hochschulverlag AG.Google Scholar
  56. Renn, O., Webler, T.h, & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating new models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  57. Sadar, A. J., & Shull, M. D. (2000). Environmental risk communication. Principles and practices for industry. Boca Raton: Lewis.Google Scholar
  58. Schneider, E., Oppermann, B., & Renn, O. (2005). Implementing structured participation for regional level waste management planning. In H. S. Lesbirel, S. Daigee (Eds.), Managing conflict in facility siting. An International Comparison (pp. 135–154). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  59. Striegnitz, M. (1990). Mediation: Lösung von Umweltkonflikten durch Vermittlung. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Umweltforschung, 3(1), 51–62.Google Scholar
  60. Susskind, L. E., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  61. UK Department of Health. (1998). Communicating about risks to health: pointers to good practice. London: UK Department of HealthGoogle Scholar
  62. Weidner, H. (1995). Innovative Konfliktregelung in der Umweltpolitik durch Mediation: Anregungen aus dem Ausland für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In P. Knoepfel (Ed.), Lösung von Umweltkonflikten durch Verhandlung. Beispiele aus dem In- und Ausland (pp. 105–125). Basel: Helbing und Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  63. Wiedemann, P. M. (1994). Mediation bei umweltrelevanten Vorhaben: Entwicklungen, Aufgaben und Handlungsfelder. In F. Claus, P. M. Wiedemann (Eds.), Umweltkonflikte: Vermittlungsverfahren zu ihrer Lösung (pp. 177–194). Taunusstein: Blottner Verlag.Google Scholar
  64. Wiedemann, P. M., Carius, R., Henschel, C., Kastenholz, H., Nothdurft, W., Ruff, F., & Uth, H.-J. (2000). Risikokommunikation für Unternehmen: Ein Leitfaden. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.Google Scholar
  65. Zilleßen, H. (1993). Die Modernisierung der Demokratie im Zeichen der Umweltpolitik. In H. Zilleßen, P. C. Dienel, W. Strubelt (Eds.), Die Modernisierung der Demokratie (pp. 17–39). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Dreyer
    • 1
    Email author
  • O. Renn
    • 2
  • A. Ely
    • 3
  • A. Stirling
    • 4
  • E. Vos
    • 5
  • F. Wendler
    • 6
  1. 1.DIALOGIKNon-Profit Institute for Communication and Cooperation ResearchStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.University of StuttgartDepartment for Sociology of Technology and EnvironmentStuttgartGermany
  3. 3.SPRU-Science and Technology Policy ResearchUniversity of SussexAfrica, China, Europe and the USA
  4. 4.Director of Science at SPRU-Science and Technology Policy ResearchUniversity of SussexUnited Kingdom
  5. 5.European University InstituteFlorenceItaly
  6. 6.Political Science from the University of GöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations