Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A new critical social science research agenda on pesticides.Becky Mansfield, Marion Werner, Christian Berndt, Annie Shattuck, Ryan Galt, Bryan Williams, Lucía Argüelles, Fernando Rafael Barri, Marcia Ishii, Johana Kunin, Pablo Lapegna, Adam Romero, Andres Caicedo, Abhigya, María Soledad Castro-Vargas, Emily Marquez, Diana Ojeda, Fernando Ramirez & Anne Tittor - forthcoming - Agriculture and Human Values:1-18.
    The global pesticide complex has transformed over the past two decades, but social science research has not kept pace. The rise of an enormous generics sector, shifts in geographies of pesticide production, and dynamics of agrarian change have led to more pesticide use, expanding to farm systems that hitherto used few such inputs. Declining effectiveness due to pesticide resistance and anemic institutional support for non-chemical alternatives also have driven intensification in conventional systems. As an inter-disciplinary network of pesticide scholars, we (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Risk assessment of genetically modified food and neoliberalism: An argument for democratizing the regulatory review protocol of the Food and Drug Administration.Zahra Meghani - 2014 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (6):967–989.
    The primary responsibility of the US Food and Drug Administration is to protect public health by ensuring the safety of the food supply. To that end, it sometimes conducts risk assessments of novel food products, such as genetically modified food. The FDA describes its regulatory review of GM food as a purely scientific activity, untainted by any normative considerations. This paper provides evidence that the regulatory agency is not justified in making that claim. It is argued that the FDA’s policy (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Genetically Engineered Animals, Drugs, and Neoliberalism: The Need for a New Biotechnology Regulatory Policy Framework.Zahra Meghani - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (6):715-743.
    Genetically engineered animals that are meant for release in the wild could significantly impact ecosystems given the interwoven or entangled existence of species. Therefore, among other things, it is all too important that regulatory agencies conduct entity appropriate, rigorous risk assessments that can be used for informed decision-making at the local, national and global levels about the release of those animals in the wild. In the United States, certain GE animals that are intended for release in the wild may be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Deficits of Public Deliberation in U.S. Oversight for Gene Edited Organisms.Jennifer Kuzma - 2021 - Hastings Center Report 51 (S2):25-33.
    Environmental releases of gene edited (GEdOs) and gene drive organisms (GDOs) will likely occur under conditions of high uncertainty and in complex socioecological systems. Therefore, public deliberation is especially important to account for diverse interpretations of safety, risks, and benefits; to draw on experiential and public wisdom in areas of proposed release; to ameliorate dangers of technological optimism; and to increase the public legitimacy of decisions. Yet there is a “democratic deficit” in the United States' oversight system for GEdOs and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation