Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Social Studies of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murphy, J.
Right arrow Articles by Carr, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Regulatory Standards for Environmental Risks

Understanding the US-European Union Conflict over Genetically Modified Crops

Joseph Murphy

Mansfield College, University of Oxford, joseph.murphy{at}mansfield.oxford.ac.uk

Les Levidow

The Open University, l.levidow{at}open.ac.uk

Susan Carr

The Open University, s.carr{at}open.ac.uk

US and European Union (EU) approaches to the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are often explained using the ideas of ‘sound science’ and the ‘precautionary principle’. These stereotypes, however, can be misleading. They can conceal conflicts within jurisdictions and important interactions between them. This paper avoids these ideas and instead analyses conflicts and interactions associated with the regulation of GMOs in the USA and the EU, using the example of Bt maize - a genetically modified crop. It focuses on risk assessment as a standard-setting process, and explains changes in regulatory standards. In this case, public protest and trade conflict created an opportunity for a transatlantic network of critical scientists to challenge regulatory standards and for non-governmental organizations to press for higher ones. The paper links two analytical perspectives to account for how this happened. ‘Regulatory science’ helps to explain what happens when the ‘private’ government-industry-academia network associated with risk regulation is opened up to greater public scrutiny. It also helps to explain how the context and content of regulatory science mutually shape each other. ‘Trading up’ helps to explain opportunities and pressures to raise regulatory standards associated with US-EU trade liberalization and trade conflict.

Key Words: Bt maize • European Union • genetically modified organisms • regulatory science • trading up • transatlantic networks • USA

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 36, No. 1, 133-160 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0306312705054591
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Social Studies of ScienceHome page
J. Abraham and C. Davis
Drug evaluation and the permissive principle: continuities and contradictions between standards and practices in antidepressant regulation.
Social Studies of Science, August 1, 2009; 39(4): 569 - 598.
[Abstract] [PDF]