Literature DB >> 27305655

How to be Cautious but Open to Learning: Time to Update Biotechnology and GMO Legislation.

Sven Ove Hansson.   

Abstract

Precautionary measures to protect human health and the environment should be science based. This implies that they should be directed at a potential danger for which there is credible scientific evidence (although that evidence need not be conclusive). Furthermore, protective measures should be updated as relevant science advances. This means that decisionmakers should be prepared to strengthen the precautionary measures if the danger turns out to be greater than initially suspected, and to reduce or lift them, should the danger prove to be smaller. Most current legislation on agricultural biotechnology has not been scientifically updated. Therefore, it reflects outdated criteria for identifying products that can cause problems. Modern knowledge in genetics, plant biology, and ecology has provided us with much better criteria that risk analysts can use to identify the potentially problematic breeding projects at which precautionary measures should be directed. Legislation on agricultural biotechnology should be scientifically updated. Furthermore, legislators should learn from this example that regulations based on the current state of science need to have inbuilt mechanisms for revisions and adjustments in response to future developments in science.
© 2016 Society for Risk Analysis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Agricultural biotechnology; GMO; plant breeding; precautionary principle; science-based precaution

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27305655     DOI: 10.1111/risa.12647

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  8 in total

1.  Trust in Science: CRISPR-Cas9 and the Ban on Human Germline Editing.

Authors:  Stephan Guttinger
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Choosing awareness over fear: Risk analysis and free trade support global food security.

Authors:  Julie Adamchick; Andres M Perez
Journal:  Glob Food Sec       Date:  2020-09

3.  Responsible Learning About Risks Arising from Emerging Biotechnologies.

Authors:  Britte Bouchaut; Lotte Asveld
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Against 'instantaneous' expertise.

Authors:  Alexander Mebius
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 2.200

Review 5.  Safe-by-Design in Engineering: An Overview and Comparative Analysis of Engineering Disciplines.

Authors:  Pieter van Gelder; Pim Klaassen; Behnam Taebi; Bart Walhout; Ruud van Ommen; Ibo van de Poel; Zoe Robaey; Lotte Asveld; Ruud Balkenende; Frank Hollmann; Erik Jan van Kampen; Nima Khakzad; Robbert Krebbers; Jos de Lange; Wolter Pieters; Karel Terwel; Eelco Visser; Tiny van der Werff; Dick Jung
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Politicizing the Precautionary Principle: Why Disregarding Facts Should Not Pass for Farsightedness.

Authors:  Philipp Aerni
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 5.753

7.  Why has the authorization of microbial biological control agents been slower in the EU than in comparable jurisdictions?

Authors:  Ingvar Sundh; Jørgen Eilenberg
Journal:  Pest Manag Sci       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 4.845

8.  Neuroethics for Fantasyland or for the Clinic? The Limitations of Speculative Ethics.

Authors:  Sven Ove Hansson
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.566

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.