Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. How consumers use mandatory genetic engineering (GE) labels: evidence from Vermont.Jane Kolodinsky, Sean Morris & Orest Pazuniak - 2019 - Agriculture and Human Values 36 (1):117-125.
    Food labels legislated by the U.S. government have been designed to provide information to consumers. It has been asserted that the simple disclosures “produced using genetic engineering” on newly legislated U.S. food labels will send a signal that influences individual preferences rather than providing information. Vermont is the only US state to have experienced mandatory labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering via simple disclosures. Using a representative sample of adults who experienced Vermont’s mandatory GE labeling policy, we examined whether (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Non-safety Assessments of Genome-Edited Organisms: Should They be Included in Regulation?Bjørn Kåre Myskja & Anne Ingeborg Myhr - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (5):2601-2627.
    This article presents and evaluates arguments supporting that an approval procedure for genome-edited organisms for food or feed should include a broad assessment of societal, ethical and environmental concerns; so-called non-safety assessment. The core of analysis is the requirement of the Norwegian Gene Technology Act that the sustainability, ethical and societal impacts of a genetically modified organism should be assessed prior to regulatory approval of the novel products. The article gives an overview how this requirement has been implemented in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • NGO perspectives on the social and ethical dimensions of plant genome-editing.Richard Helliwell, Sarah Hartley & Warren Pearce - 2019 - Agriculture and Human Values 36 (4):779-791.
    Plant genome editing has the potential to become another chapter in the intractable debate that has dogged agricultural biotechnology. In 2016, 107 Nobel Laureates accused Greenpeace of emotional and dogmatic campaigning against agricultural biotechnology and called for governments to defy such campaigning. The Laureates invoke the authority of science to argue that Greenpeace is putting lives at risk by opposing agricultural biotechnology and Golden Rice and is notable in framing Greenpeace as unethical and its views as marginal. This paper examines (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • With great power comes great responsibility: why ‘safe enough’ is not good enough in debates on new gene technologies.Sigfrid Kjeldaas, Tim Dassler, Trine Antonsen, Odd-Gunnar Wikmark & Anne I. Myhr - 2022 - Agriculture and Human Values 40 (2):533-545.
    New genomic techniques (NGTs) are powerful technologies with the potential to change how we relate to our food, food producers, and natural environment. Their use may affect the practices and values our societies are built on. Like many countries, the EU is currently revisiting its GMO legislation to accommodate the emergence of NGTs. We argue that assessing such technologies according to whether they are ‘safe enough’ will not create the public trust necessary for societal acceptance. To avoid past mistakes of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark