Backer, I. L., “Sustainability and Benefit to the Community Concerning the Release and Use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the Norwegian Gene Technology Act,” International Conference on the Release and Use of Genetically Modified Organisms: Sustainable Development and Legal Control
(The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, Oslo, 1995), pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
Barrett, K., Canadian Agricultural Biotechnology: Risk Assessment and the Precautionary Principle, PhD dissertation (University of British Columbia, 1999).
Bayertz, K., Gen-Ethics
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 153–197.Google Scholar
Beetham, P. R., P. B. Kipp, X. L. Sawycky, C. J. Arntzen, and G. D. May, “A Tool for Functional Plant Genomics Cause in vivo Gene-Specific Mutations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 96 (1999), 8774–8778.
Benbrook, C. M., “Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Glyphosate Efficacy is Slipping and Unstable Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defence and Yield,” AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper No. 4 (2001) (www.biotechinfo. net/troubledtimes.hmtl).
Bergelson, J., C. P. Purrington, and G. Wichmann, “Promiscuity in Transgenic Plants,” Nature
395 (1998), 25.Google Scholar
Cameron, J. and J. Abouchar, “The Precautionary Principle: A Fundamental Principle of Law and Policy for the Protection of the Global Environment,” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review
XIV (1991), 1–28.Google Scholar
Case Documents: Genetically Modified Begonia (1993-12-13) Herbicide Tolerant Rape (1994-07-08) (http://www.bion.no.). Herbicide tolerant rape notification C/UK/94/M1/1, Ministry of Environment (http://odin.dep.no/md/engelsk/topics/biodiversity/genetechnology)
Chévre A. M., F. Eber, A. Baranger, and M. Renard, “Gene Flow from Transgenic Crops,” Nature
389 (1997), 924.Google Scholar
Christiansen, S. B. and P. Sandø, “Bioethics: Limits to the Interference with Life,” Animal Reproduction Science
60–61 (2000), 15–29.Google Scholar
Clark, E. A. and H. Lehman, “Assessment of GM Crops in Commercial Agriculture,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
14 (2001), 3–28.Google Scholar
Cox, C., “Glyphosate, Part 1: Toxicology,” Journal of Pesticide Reform 15(3) (1995), 14–20 and “Glyphosate, Part 2: Human Exposure and Ecological Effects,” Journal of Pesticide Reform 15(4) (1995), 14–20.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J., R. S. Hails, M. Rees, D. Kohn, and J. Buxton, “Ecology of Transgenic Oilseed Rape in Natural Habitats,” Nature
363 (1993), 620–623.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J., S. L. Brown, R. S. Hails, D. D. Kohn, and M. Rees, “Transgenic Crops in Natural Habitats,” Nature
409 (2001), 682–683.Google Scholar
Davies, K., “What Makes Genetically Modified Organisms so Distasteful?” Trends in Biotechnology
19 (2001), 424–427.Google Scholar
Dobson, A., Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental Sustainability and Theories of Distributive Justice
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998).Google Scholar
Dovers, S. R., T.W. Norton, and J.W. Handmer, “Uncertainty, Ecology, Sustainability and Policy,” Biodiversity and Conservation
5 (1996), 1143–1167.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, N. C., H. C. Prentice, and J. E. Hancock, “Gene Flow and Introgression from Domesticated Plants into Their Wild Relatives,” Ann Rev Ecol Systematics
30 (1999), 539–563.Google Scholar
EU: Commission of the European Communities, Communication on the Precautionary Principle (Brussels, 2000) (http://europa.eu.int).
EU: Commission of the European Communities, European Commission Revises GM Labelling and Tracing Rules (Brussels, 2001a) (http://europa.eu.int).
EU: Commission of the European Communities, Main Results of Eurobarometer 55.2 (Brussels, 2001b) (http://europa.eu.int).
Freestone, D. and E. Hey, “Origins and Development of the Precautionary Principle,” in D. Freestone and E. Hey (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law
(Kluwer Law International, Netherlands, 1996), pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Foster, K. R., P. Vecchia, and M. H. Repacholi, “Science and the Precautionary Principle,” Science
288 (2000), 979–981.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz, “The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-Normal Science,” Ecological Economics
10 (1994), 197–207.Google Scholar
Gebhard, F. and K. Smalla, “Transformation of Acinetobacter sp. Strain BD413 by transgenic sugar beet DNA,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology
64 (1998), 1550–1554.Google Scholar
Gebhard, F. and K. Smalla, “Monitoring Field Releases of Genetically Modified Sugar Beets for Persistence of Transgenic Plant DNA and Horizontal Gene Transfer,” FEMS Microbiol Ecol
28 (1999), 261–272.Google Scholar
Gene Technology Act 1993. The Act Relating to the Production and Use of Genetically Modified Organism. Act no. 38 of 2 April 1993, Oslo, Norway.
Hall, L., K. Topinka, J. Huffmann, L. Davies, and A. Good, “Pollen Flow between Herbicide Resistant Brassica napus is the Cause of Multiple-Resistant B. napus Volunteere,” Weed Science
48 (2000), 688–694.Google Scholar
Heeger, R. and F. W. A. Brom, “Intrinsic Value and Direct Duties: From Animal Ethics Towards Environmental Ethics?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics
14 (2001), 241–252.Google Scholar
Holland, A., “The Biotic Community. A Philosophical Critiques of Genetic Engineering,” in P. Wheale and R. McNally (eds.), The Biorevolution: Cornucopia or Pandora Box
(Pluto Press, London, 1990), pp. 166–174.Google Scholar
Iamtham, S. A. and A. Day, “Removal of Antibiotic Resistance Genes from Transgenic Tobacco Plastids,” Nature Biotechnolology
18 (2000), 1172–1176.Google Scholar
James, C., Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000, ISAAA Briefs No. 23, Ithaca (New York, 2001) (http://www.isaaa.org).
Jiggins, J., “Citizen Participation in Defining the Alternatives,” in B. Rydhagen and C. Dackman (eds.), Dolly and the Bean (Universitetstryckeriet, 1999, Luleå), pp. 79–92.
Jordan, A. and T. O'Riordan, “The Precautionary Principle in Contemporary Environmental Policy and Politics,” in C. Raffensperger and J. Tickner (eds.), Protecting Public Health and the Environment, Implementing the Precautionary Principle
(Island Press, Washington, 1999), pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
Kapuscinski, A. R., L. R. Jacobs, and E. E. Pullins, Making Safety First a Reality
. Final Report of the March 2–3, 2001 Workshop (ISEES, Minnesota, 2001) (http://www. fw.umn.edu/isees).Google Scholar
Levidow, L. and C. Marris, “Science and Governance in Europe: Lessons from the Case of Agricultural Biotechnology,” Science and Public Policy
28 (2001), 345–360.Google Scholar
MacArthur, M., Triple-Resistant Canola Weeds Found in Alberta (The Western Producers, 2000) (http://www.producer.com.articles/20000210/news).
Marshall, G., “Herbicide-Tolerant Crops — Real Farmer Opportunity or Potential Environmental Problem?” Pesticide Science
52 (1998), 394–402.Google Scholar
Midgley, M., “Biotechnology and Monstrosity: WhyWe Should Pay Attention to the ‘Yuk Factor',” Hasting Center Reports
30(5) (2000), 7–15.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen T. R., B. Andersen, and R. B. Jørgensen, “The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread,” Nature
380 (1996), 31.Google Scholar
Myhr, A. I., “Biosafety in Norway,” Binas News 5 (1999) (http://binas.unido.org/binas).
Norton, B., “Sustainability, HumanWelfare and Ecosystem Health,” Environmental Values
1 (1992), 97–111.Google Scholar
Novak, W. K. and A. G. Haslberger, “Substantial Equivalence of Antinutrients and Inherent Plant Toxins in Genetically Modified Foods,” Food and Chemical Toxicology
38 (2000), 473–483.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1999, London). (http://www.nuffield.org/bioethics).
Redclift, M., “Sustainable Development: Needs, Values, Rights,” Environmental Values
2 (1993), 3–20.Google Scholar
Rissler, J. and M. Mellon, The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops
(MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1996).Google Scholar
Rotblat, Sir J., “A Hippocratic Oath to Scientists,” Science
286 (1999), 1475.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M., “Rights, Goals, and Fairness,” in S. Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and Its Critics
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988), pp. 74–92.Google Scholar
Sen, A., Inequality Reexamined
(Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1992).Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K., Risk and Rationality
(University of California Press, Berkeley, 1991).Google Scholar
Slovic, P., “Beyond Numbers: A Broader Perspective on Risk Perception and Risk Communication,” in D. G. Mayo and R. Hollander (eds.), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management
(Oxford University Press: New York, 1991), pp. 48–65.Google Scholar
Snow, A. A., B. Andersen, and R. B. Jørgensen,”Costs of Transgenic Herbicide Resistance Introgressed from Brassica napus into Weedy B. rapa,” Molecular Ecology
8 (1999), 605–615.Google Scholar
The Royal Society of Canada, Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada (http://www.rsc.ca, 2001).
Thompson, P. B., Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective, Techniques and Perspectives in Food Biotechnology
, Vol. 1 (Chapman & Hall, London, 1997), pp. 216–240.Google Scholar
Traavik, T., “An Orphan in Science: Environmental Risks of Genetically Engineered Vaccines,” Research report for DN
. No. 1999-6
(Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim, 1999).Google Scholar
USDA, “Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use?” (http://www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf.agout/aug2000, 2000).
WCED (World Commission on Environment and development), Our common future
(Oxford University Press, UK, 1987).Google Scholar
Westra, L., “Biotechnology and Transgenic in Agriculture and Aquaculture; the Perspectives from Ecosystem Integrity,” Environmental Values
7 (1998), 79–96.Google Scholar
Williamson, M., J. Perrins, and A. Fitter, “Releasing Genetically Engineered Plants: Present Proposals and Possible Hazards,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution
5 (1990), 417–419.Google Scholar
Wolfenbarger, L. L. and P. R. Phifer, “The Ecological Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants,” Science
290 (2000), 2088–2093.Google Scholar
Wynne, B., “Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics of GMOs,” Science as Culture
10 (2001), 445–481.Google Scholar