Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International vergleichende Analyse und Bewertung der Konzepte zur GVO-Risikoanalyse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
GeneRisk

Part of the book series: Umweltnatur- & Umweltsozialwissenschaften ((UMWELTNATUR))

Zusammenfassung

Im internationalen Zusammenhang werden Fragen des Umgangs mit GVO vielfältig diskutiert. Eine besondere Rolle spielt dabei die Wahrung der Entscheidungsfreiheit und Souveränität der Staaten, dieses Thema für ihr jeweiliges Territorium zu regeln. Einen wesentlichen Inhalt bildet die Entwicklung von Regeln und Normen für den Umgang mit dem Handel, der grenzüberschreitenden Verbringung von GVO und der biologischen Sicherheit. Standards hierzu formuliert das internationale Abkommen über Biologische Sicherheit (Cartagena-Protocol on Biosafety1). Dieses Abkommen wurde im Rahmen der Biodiversitätskonvention etabliert (Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); http://www.cbd.int). Beide Konventionen werden im Rahmen regelmäßiger Konferenzen weiter entwickelt. Seitens des GeneRisk-Projekts wurden Aspekte zur Ausarbeitung des systemischen Charakters von GVO-Risiken in einer Begleitveranstaltung zur letzten Tagung der Mitglieder des Cartagena Protokolls in Nagoya (Japan) in einer Begleitveranstaltung zur sozialen Nachhaltigkeit und biologischen Sicherheit präsentiert (Breckling 2010).

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 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://bch.cbd.int/protocol

  2. 2.

    ein Überblick über die GVO-Vorschriften der EU findet sich auf der Internetseite: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/evaluation/gmo_nutshell_en.htm

  3. 3.

    Richtlinie 90/220/EWG des Rates vom 23. April 1990 über die absichtliche Freisetzung genetisch veränderter Organismen in die Umwelt http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0220:DE:HTML

  4. 4.

    der Text des CPB findet sich auf: http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/protocol.shtml

  5. 5.

    http://bch.cbd.int

  6. 6.

    http://www.unep.org/biosafety/

  7. 7.

    http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Lists/Advanced%20Search/AllItems.aspx

  8. 8.

    http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/99/st09/st09433-re01.en99.pdf

    http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/99/st09/st09433-ad01.en99.pdf

    http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/99/st09/st09433.en99.pdf

  9. 9.

    http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmo_intro_en.htm

  10. 10.

    http://pubresreg.org/

  11. 11.

    http://www.sozial-oekologische-forschung.org/de/692.php

  12. 12.

    http://www.ifpri.org/book-637/node/5339

  13. 13.

    http://www.cec.org/maize

  14. 14.

    http://records.co.hawaii.hi.us/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=50710%26;%26;dbid=0

  15. 15.

    http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/geneticresources/ECMinutes_180907.pdf

  16. 16.

    http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/147_sanco_gmo_cultivation_en.pdf

  17. 17.

    weitere Informationen unter: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm

  18. 18.

    http://www.gmls.eu

  19. 19.

    Siehe Scientific Conference & Citizen Forum: Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety. Scientific Findings, Policy Responses and Public Participation – Social Sustainability and Biological Safety.

Zitierte Literatur

  • Abaza H, Bisset R, Sadler B (2004) Environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment: towards an integrated approach. UN Environmental Program, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Aheto DW (2009) Implication analysis for biotechnology regulation and management in Africa. Baseline studies for assessment of potential effects of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation in Ghanaian agriculture. Peter Lang, Basel, Frankfurt/M

    Google Scholar 

  • Aheto DW, Reuter H, Breckling B (2011) A modelling assessment of geneflow in smallholder agriculture in West Africa. Environ Sci Eur 23(9). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ 2190-4715-23-9

  • Andow DA, Birch ANE, Dusi AN, Fontes EMG, Hilbeck A, Lang A, Lövei GL, Pires CSS, Sujii ER, Underwood E, Wheatley RE (2006) Non-target and biodiversity risk assessment for genetically modified (GM) crops. Proceedings of 9th international symposium on the biosafety of genetically modified organisms, Jeju Island, Korea, pp 68–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for nontarget effects of transgenic crops. BioScience 54:637–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andow DA, Hilbeck A, Nguyen VT (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 4: Challenges and opportunities with Bt cotton in Vietnam. Cabi Publishing, Wallingford

    Google Scholar 

  • Andow DA, Zwahlen C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecol Lett 9:196–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anonymus (2010) EU GMO proposals draw widespread criticism. EurActiv Network, Brussels, 14.07.2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg P, Baltimore D, Nathans D, Boyer HW, Roblin R, Cohen SN, Watson JD, Davis RW, Weissman S, Hogness DS, Zinder ND (1974) Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Proc Natl Acad Sci 71:2593–2594

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Breckling B (2010) Assessing Systemic Risks. Contribution to the Scientific Conference & Citizen Forum: Advancing the Understanding of Biosafety. Scientific Findings, Policy Responses and Public Participation – Social Sustainability and Biological Safety. Nagaoya/Japan, 7.-8.10.2010, http://www.ensser.org/activities/meetings/biosafety-conference-nagoya/; http://www.ensser.org/uploads/media/KN4-Breckling-EN.pdf; http://www.ensser.org/uploads/pics/KN4_Breckling.pdf

  • Breckling B, Laue H, Pehlke H (2011a) Remote sensing as a data source to analyse regional implications of genetically modified plants in agriculture – Oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in Northern Germany. Ecological Indicators 11(4):942–950. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breckling B, Reuter H, Middelhoff U, Glemnitz M, Wurbs A, Schmidt G, Schröder W, Windhorst W (2011b) Risk indication of genetically modified organisms (GMO): modelling environmental exposure and dispersal across different scales. Ecological Indicators 11(4):936–941. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs DJ (2008) A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environ Health 7:61–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brush S, Chauvet M (2004) Assessment of social and cultural effects associated with transgenic maize production. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley R (2000) Strategic environmental assessment of policies and plans: legislation and implementation. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 18:209–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2004) Decision VI/7. Identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments. Guidelines for incorporating biodiversity related issues into environmental-impact-assessment legislation or processes and in strategic impact assessment. Secretarial of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2006) CBD Technical Series No. 26 – Biodiversity in impact assessment. Background document to CBD Decision VIII/28: Voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment. Secretarial of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • CEC (2004) Maize & Biodiversity. The effects of transgenic maize in Mexico – Key findings and recommendations. Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaker A, El-Fad K, Chamas L, Hatjian B (2006) A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:15–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipman A (2010) Fears over Europe’s GM crop plan. Nature 466:542–543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • COGEM (2009) Socio-economic aspects of GMOs. Building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops. Commissie Genetische Modificatie, Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen SN (1975) The manipulation of genes. Sci Am 233:25–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen SN (1977) Recombinant DNA: fact and fiction. Science 195:654–657

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Commandeur P, Joly PB, Levidow L, Tappeser B, Terragni F (1996) Public debate and regulation of biotechnology in Europe. Biotech Dev Monit 26:2–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA (2009) Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. National Research Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • de Greef W (2004) The Cartagena Protocol and the future of agbiotech. Nat Biotechnol 22:811–812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Bundestag (1987) Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnologie. Deutscher Bundestag, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos, Y, Reheul D, Dewaele D, van Speybroeck, L (2006) The interplay between societal concerns and the regulatory frame on GM crops in the European Union. Environ Biosaf Res 5:127–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2010a) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 8(11):1879 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2010b) Scientific Opinion on the assessment of potential impacts of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms. EFSA J 8(11):1879 doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1877

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2001) Bt cotton confirmatory data and terms and conditions of the amendment. EPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) New policy for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cultivation. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Falck-Zepeda JB (2009) Socio-economic considerations, Article 26.1 of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: What are the issues and what is at stake? AgBioForum 12(1):90–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Drug Administration (1992) Statement of policy & guidance to industry: foods derived from new plant varieties. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Alonso M, Jakobs E, Raybould A, Nickson TE, Sowig P, Willekens H, van der Kouwe P, Layton R, Amijee F, Fuentes AM (2006) A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 5:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402(Suppl):6761

    Google Scholar 

  • Glemnitz M, Wurbs A, Roth R (2011) Derivation of regional crop sequences as an indicator for potential GMO dispersal on large spatial scales. Ecological Indicators 11(4):964–973. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnansounou E (2011) Assessing the sustainability of biofuels: a logic-based model. Energy 36: 2089–2096

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodell RS (1979) Public involvement in the DNA controversy: the case of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sci Technol Human Values 4:36–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodland R (2005) Strategic environmental assessment and the World Bank group. Inter J Sustain Dev World Ecol 12:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A (1999) Framing “biosafety” in an international context: the biosafety protocol negotiations. Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing D (2009) Systemic risks in society and economics. Working Paper 09-12-044. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbig J (1978) Die Gen-Ingenieure. Hanser, München & Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbeck A, Andow DA (2004) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 1: A case study of Bt maize in Kenya. Cabi Publishing, Wallingford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbeck A, Andow DA, Fontes EMG (2006) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, Volume 2: Methodologies for assessing Bt cotton in Brazil. Cabi Publishing, Wallingford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbeck A, Baumgartner M, Fried PM, Bigler F (1998a) Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ Entymol 27:480–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbeck, A, Meier MS, Raps A (2000) Review on non-target organisms and Bt plants. Report prepared for Greenpeace International, Amsterdam. EcoStrat GmbH, Ecological Technology Assessment & Environmental Consulting, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbeck A, Moar WJ, Pusztai-Carey M, Filippini A, Bigler F (1998b) Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin to the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Environ Entymol 27:1255–1263

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RA (2005) Conceptualizing risk assessment methodology for genetically modified organisms. Environ Biosaf Res 4:67–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ Biosaf Res 2:81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IRGC (2008) An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jänsch S, Amorim MJ, Römbke J (2005) Identification of the ecological requirements of important terrestrial ecotoxicological test species. Environ Rev 13:51–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay S (2010) Strategic environmental assessment for energy production. Energy Policy 38:3489–3497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller C, Koechlin F (1989) Basler Appell gegen Gentechnologie: Materialband Kongress vom 5./6. November 1988 in Basel. Rotpunktverlag, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollek R, Tappeser B, Altner G (1986) Gentechnologie Chancen und Risiken Bd. 10. Die ungeklärten Gefahrenpotentiale der Gentechnologie: Dokumentation eines öffentlichen Fachsymposiums vom 7.-9. März 1986 in Heidelberg. J Schweitzer Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvakkestad V, Gillund F, Kjølberg KA, Vatn A (2007) Scientists perspectives on the deliberate release of GM crops. Environ Values 16:79–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L, Carr S, Wiel D (2000) Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities. J Risk Res 3:189–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre NA, Gaskell J, Rosegrant MW, Falck-Zepeda J, Quemada H, Halsey M, Birner R (2006) Strategic environmental assessments for genetically modified organisms. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marvier M, McCreedy MC, Regetz J, Kaveira P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316:1475–1477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael A (2008) Environmental change, climate and population health: a challenge for inter-disciplinary research. Environ Health Prev Med 13:183–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer H (2000) The Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Biotech Dev Monit 43:2–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer H (2007) The precautionary principle and the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: development of a concept. In: Traavik T, Li Ching L (eds) Biosafety first – Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim, pp 469–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Middelhoff U, Reiche EW, Windhorst W (2011a) An integrative methodology to predict dispersal of genetically modified genotypes in oilseed rape at landscape-level—A study for the region of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological Indicators 11(4):1000–1007. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middelhoff U, Reuter H, Breckling B (2011b) GeneTraMP, a spatio-temporal model of the dispersal and persistence of transgenes in feral, volunteer and crop plants of oilseed rape and related species. Ecological Indicators 11(4):974–988. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstone E, Zwanenberg P van, Marris C, Levidow L, Torgersen H (2004) Science in trade disputes related to potential risks: comparative case studies. European Commission, Seville

    Google Scholar 

  • Ming-Lone L, Yue-Hwa Y (2004) Development and implementation of strategic environmental assessment in Taiwan. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson KC, Banker MJ (2007) Problem formulation and options assessment handbook. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickson TE (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops. Plant Physiol 147:494–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Obrycki J, Losey JE, Taylor OR, Jesse LCH (2001) Transgenic insecticidal corn: beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51:353–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003) Emerging risks in the 21st century – An agenda for action. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2006) Applying strategic environmental assessment. Good Practice guidance for development cooperation. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008) Strategic environmental assessment and ecosystem services. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Science and Technology Policy (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka Y (2003) Socioeconomic considerations relevant to the sustainable development, use and control of genetically modified foods. Food Sci Tech 14:294–318

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack A (2011) U.S.D.A. ruling on Bluegrass stirs cries of lax regulation. The New York Times, 06.07.2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Raybould A (2006) Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ Biosaf Res 5:119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raybould A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci 173:589–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon S (2011) EPA proposal would exempt some GMOs from registry. Science 322:652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter H, Schmidt G, Schröder W, Middelhoff U, Pehlke H, Breckling B (2011) Regional distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—Up-scaling the dispersal and persistence potential of herbicide resistant oilseed rape (Brassisca napus). Ecological Indicators 11(4):989–999. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers J (1981) Asilomar revisited. Mosaic Jan/Feb 1981:19–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Römbke J, Jänsch S, Meier M, Hilbeck A, Teichmann H, Tappeser B (2009) General recommendations for soil ecotoxicological tests suitable for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:287–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat Biotechnol 26:203–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt G, Schröder W (2011) Regionalisation of climate variability used for modelling the dispersal of genetically modified oil seed rape in Northern Germany. Ecological Indicators 11(4):951–963. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer M, Soll D (1973) Guidelines for DNA hybrid molecules. Science 181:1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2001) The risk game. J Hazard Mater 89:17–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, Tiedje JM (2005) Genetically modified organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations. Ecol Appl 15:377–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow AA, Moran-Palma P (1997) Commercialization of transgenic plants: potential ecological risks. BioScience 47:86–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoeglehner G, Brown AL, Kørnøv LB (2009) SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 27:111–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suter GW (1993) Ecological risk assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Therivel R, Wilson E, Thompson S, Heaney D, Pritchard D (1992) Strategic environmental assessment. Earthscan Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Voosen P (2011) In major shift, USDA clears way for modified Bluegrass. The New York Times, 06.07.2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson JD (1977a) An imaginary monster. Bull At Sci 33:19–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson JD (1977b) Remarks on recombinant DNA. CoEvol Quart Summer:40–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1994) Molecular politics. Developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972–1982. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10:445

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler, In den Steinäckern 13, 38116, Braunschweig, Deutschland

    Hartmut Meyer

Authors
  1. Hartmut Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hartmut Meyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Lehrstuhl für Landschaftsökologie, Universität Vechta, Vechta, 49364, Germany

    Broder Breckling

  2. , Lehrstuhl für Landschaftsökologie, Universität Vechta, Vechta, 49364, Germany

    Gunther Schmidt

  3. , Lehrstuhl für Landschaftsökologie, Universität Vechta, Vechta, 49364, Germany

    Winfried Schröder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meyer, H. (2012). International vergleichende Analyse und Bewertung der Konzepte zur GVO-Risikoanalyse. In: Breckling, B., Schmidt, G., Schröder, W. (eds) GeneRisk. Umweltnatur- & Umweltsozialwissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23433-0_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation