Advertisement

Commentaries on the Revised General Framework1

  • David Atkins
  • Julie Norman
Chapter
Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 15)

1

A Risk Management Perspective on the Governance Framework

Introduction

  1. 1.

    All of us occupy private realms of unreason where we merge evidence, myth, and belief. It is part of the human condition that determines who we are as individuals; but in public life the transparent use of evidence and robust scientific analysis are paramount to winning trust in decisions taken by experts and politicians. Nowhere is this more important than in the fields of health and food safety, where those involved have a duty to be clear about how judgements have been reached and to be explicit about how the different streams of evidence and analysis have contributed to the outcome.

     
  2. 2.

    Fundamental to this duty is good science governance, based on agreed and transparent best practice, that sets out for both the expert and lay stakeholder how evidence and scientific analysis are used in the decision-making process. Operated transparently such governance makes the decision-making process accountable, open to...

Keywords

European Union Risk Management Food Safety European Food Safety Authority Stakeholder Dialogue 
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

  1. 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
  2. Food Standards Agency (2006). Annual Report of the Chief Scientist 2006/07. www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa071005a.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2008.
  3. The Royal Society & Food Standards Agency (2005). Social Science Insights for Risk Assessment: Findings of a Workshop held by the Royal Society and the Food Standards Agency on 30 September 2005. www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id = 2797. Accessed 30 January 2008.
  4. World Health Organisation (WHO) & Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (2006). Food Safety Risk Analysis. A Guide for National Food Safety Authorities (FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 87). www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/riskanalysis06.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2008.
  5. Abels, G. (2002). Experts, citizens, and eurocrats – towards a policy shift in the governance of biopolitics in the EU. European Integration Online Papers, 6(19). http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002–019a.htm. Accessed 15 January 2008.
  6. Bal, R., Bijker, W. E., & Hendriks, R. (2004). Democratisation of scientific advice. British Medical Journal, 329, 1339–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Codex Alimentarius (2007). Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments. CAC/GL 62/2007.Google Scholar
  8. Commission of the European Communities (2000a). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM 1 final, 2 February 2000. Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. Commission of the European Communities (2000b). First Report of the Scientific Steering Committee’s Working Group on the Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures. Brussels: Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General.Google Scholar
  10. Commission of the European Communities (2001). European Governance. A White Paper, COM 428 final, 25 July 2001. Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities (2003). The Future of Risk Assessment in the European Union. Europe: Scientific Steering Committee.Google Scholar
  12. Commission’s DG SANCO (2005). Maximising the Contribution of Science to European Health and Safety. Brussels: DG SANCO.Google Scholar
  13. de Hollander, A. E. M. & Hanemaaijer, A. H. (Eds.) (2003). Coping Rationally with Risks. RIVM rapport 251701047 (pp 1–52). Bilthoven, The Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).Google Scholar
  14. Dietrich, H., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EFSA’s Scientific Committee 2006 Transparency in Risk Assessment carried out by EFSA. EFSA Journal 353 1 16.Google Scholar
  16. Frewer, L. J., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1191–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Funtovicz, S., Shepherd, I., Wilkinson, D., & Ravetz, J. (2000). Science and governance in the European Union: a contribution to the debate. Science and Public Policy, 27(5), 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaskell, G. (2004). Science policy and society: the British debate over GM agriculture. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15, 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis and Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 3(3), 199–215.Google Scholar
  20. Hoppe, R. (2007). Scientic Expertise and the Policy Process: Boundary Workers’ Perspectives, Paper for Interpretive Policy Analysis Conference. Amsterdam: Free University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk- based, precaution-based and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, 22, 1071–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klinke, A., Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Stirling, A., & van Zwanenberg, P. (2006). Precautionary risk regulation in European governance. Journal of Risk Research, 4(9), 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levidow, L., Carr, S., & Wield, D. (2005). European Union regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Science and Policy, 27, 261–276.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, G., Paldam Folker, A., Bagger Jørgenson, R., Krayer von Krauss, M., Sandøe, P., & Tveit, G. (2005). The factualisation of uncertainty: Risks, politics, and genetically modified crops–a case of rape. Agriculture and Human Values, 22, 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mumpower, J. L. & Stewart, T. R. (1996). Expert judgement and expert disagreement. Thinking and Reasoning, 2(2–3), 191–212.Google Scholar
  27. Renn, O. (2004). Deliberative Approaches to Manage Systemic Risks, Presentation at the Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF). Stockholm: ESOF. http://www.esof2004.org/pdf_ppt/session_material/ortwin_renn_2.ppt. Accessed 15 January 2008.
  28. Stirling, A. (2007). Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO reports, 8(4), 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vos, E., & Wendler, F. (Eds.). (2006). Food Safety Regulation in Europe: A Comparative Institutional Analysis (Series Ius Commune). Antwerp: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  30. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2007). Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments. CAC/GL 62–2007.Google Scholar
  31. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2000). White Paper on Food Safety, COM (1999) 719 final, 12 January 2000, Brussels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Atkins
    • 1
  • Julie Norman
  1. 1.Chief Scientist Team at the UK’s Food Standards AgencyManchester UniversityManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations