Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:49:51.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anomalies at the precautionary kingdom: reflections on the GMO Panel's decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2007

OREN PEREZ
OREN PEREZ
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan University, Faculty of Law Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special GMO Symposium
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 2007 , pp. 265 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Oren Perez 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Binmore, Ken (1993), ‘De-Bayesing Game Theory’, in Binmore, K., Kirman, A., and Tani, P. (eds.), Frontiers of Game Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Daily, Gretchen et al. (2000), ‘The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value’, Science, 289: 395–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ervin, David E. and Rick, Welsh (forthcoming), ‘Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Crops: Differentiated Risk Assessment and Management’, in Wesseler, J. (ed.), Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops, Springer.Google Scholar
GM-Science-Review-Panel (2004), ‘An Open Review of the Science Relevant to GM Crops and Food Based on Interests and Concerns of the Public’, London.Google Scholar
Harremoes, Poul, David Gee, Malcolm MacGarvin, Andy Stirling, Jane Keys, Brian, Wynne, and Sofia, Guedes-Vaz (2001), Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency (EEA).Google Scholar
Howson, Colin (2000), Hume's Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David (1777), ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding, and Concerning the Principles of Morals’, Project Gutenberg eBook (EBook #9662).Google Scholar
Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, EL., Quinn, M., Rudel, R., Schettler, T., and Stoto, M. (2001), ‘The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science’, Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(9): 871–876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kysar, Douglas A. (2006), ‘It Might Have Been: Risk, Precaution, and Opportunity Costs’, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-023. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=927995.Google Scholar
Maturana, Humberto R. (1988), ‘Reality: The Search for Objectivity or the Quest for a Compelling Argument’, The Irish Journal of Psychology, 9(1): 25–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, William Edward (2001), ‘David Hume’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Murphy, Joseph, Les, Levidow, and Susan, Carr (2006), ‘Regulatory Standards for Environmental Risks: Understanding the US–European Union Conflict over Genetically Modified Crops’, Social Studies of Science, 36(1): 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, Steven (1997), ‘Descartes's Demon and the Madness of Don Quixote’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 58: 41–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, Oren (2006), ‘The Institutionalization of Inconsistency: from Fluid Concepts to Random Walk’, in Perez, O. and Teubner, G. (eds.), Paradoxes and Inconsistencies in Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006), ‘The Precautionary Principle is Incoherent’, Risk Analysis, 26(3): 595–601.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas (2000), Nature and Understanding: The Metaphysics and Method of Science, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Royal-Commission-on-Genetic-Modification (2002), Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, Wellington, New Zealand: Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.Google Scholar
Weiss, Charles (2003), ‘Expressing Scientific Uncertainty’, Law, Probability and Risk, 2: 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, Rick and David, E. Ervin (2006), ‘Precaution as an Approach to Technology Development: the Case of Transgenic Crops’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(2): 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar