Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals

REFERENCES

• Ambrus, M., Arts, K., Hey, E. and Raulus, E. (eds) (2014a) The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-making Processes: Advisors, Decision-makers or Irrelevant actors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ambrus, M., Arts, K., Hey, E. and Raulus, E. (2014b) ‘The role of ‘experts’ in international and European decision-making processes: setting the scene’, in M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and E. Raulus (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-making Processes: Advisors, Decision-makers or Irrelevant Actors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Andresen, S. (2014) ‘The role of scientific expertise in multilateral environmental agreements: influence and effectiveness’, in M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and E. Raulus (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-making Processes: Advisors, Decision-makers or Irrelevant Actors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–25.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein S.R. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216–24. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, B. and Klintman, M. (2010) ‘Stakeholder participation in the EU governance of GMO in the food chain’, in K. Bäckstrand, J. Khan, A. Kronsell and E. Lövbrand (eds), Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 105–22.
   Google Scholar
• Borrás, S., Koutalakis C. and Wendler F. (2007) ‘European agencies and input legitimacy: EFSA, EMeA and EPO in the post-delegation phase’, Journal of European Integration 29(5): 583–600. doi: 10.1080/07036330701694899
   Google Scholar
• Busuioc, E.M. (2014) ‘Blurred areas of responsibility: European agencies’ scientific “opinions” under scrutiny’, in M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and E. Raulus (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-making Processes: Advisors, Decision-makers or Irrelevant Actors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 383–402.
   Google Scholar
• Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) (2007) ‘Working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application by governments’, CAC/GL62-2007, Rome: World Health Organisation.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J.W. (2014) Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed., London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyer, M. and Renn, O. (2014) ‘EFSA's involvement policy: moving towards an analytic-deliberative process in EU food safety governance?’, in C. Holst (ed.), Expertise and Democracy, Oslo: ARENA, pp. 323–52.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Ely, A., Stirling, A., Vos, E. and Wendler, F. (2008) ‘A general framework for the precautionary and inclusive governance of food safety in Europe’, Final report of the SAFE FOODS project, Stuttgart: DIALOGIK.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2002) ‘EC Regulation No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety’, Official Journal of the European Communities, 01.02.2002, L31/1.
   Google Scholar
• Environment Agency Austria (2010) Defining Environmental Risk Assessment Criteria for GM Insects to be Placed on the EU Market, Parma: EFSA.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2013) ‘Deliberate release and placing on the EU market of GMOS – GMO register’ Notification Report B/ES/13/07, available at http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/gmo_browse.aspx (accessed 25 November 2014).
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (n.d.) EFSA's Approach on Public Consultations on Scientific Outputs, Parma: EFSA.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2010) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of GM plants, Scientific Opinion, Parma: EFSA, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.187.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2012) Draft Guidance on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Animals, Parma: EFSA.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2013a) Guidance on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Animals, Scientific Opinion, Parma: EFSA. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3200.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2013b) Outcome of the Public Consultation on the Draft Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms Providing Guidance on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Animals. Technical Report, Parma: EFSA.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2013c) Minutes of the 81st Plenary Meeting of the Scientific Panel on GMO, 17–18 April, Parma: EFSA.
   Google Scholar
• European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2014) Definitions of EFSA Scientific Outputs and Supporting Publications, Parma: EFSA.
   Google Scholar
• European Ombudsman (2013) ‘EFSA's handling of various issues relating to GM insects’, Case: 0346/2013/ANA, available at http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/ (accessed 15 October 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Finardi, C., Pellegrini, G. and Rowe, G. (2012) ‘Food safety issues: from enlightened elitism towards deliberative democracy?’, Food Policy, doi: 10.1080/07036330701694899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabbi, S. (2007) ‘Interaction between risk assessors and risk managers’, European Food & Feed Law Review 3: 126–35.
   Google Scholar
• GeneWatch UK, Testbiotech, Berne Declaration, SwissAid, and Corporate Europe Observatory (2012) ‘GM insects: under whose control?’, Buxton: Genewatch, available at http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/Regnbrief_fin2.pdf (accessed 19 June 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Hartley, S. and Millar, K.M. (2014) ‘The challenges of consulting the public on science policy: examining the development of European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals’, Review of Policy Research, doi: 10.1111/ropr.12102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herwig, A. (2014) ‘Health risks, experts and decision-making within the SPS Agreement and the Codex Alimentarius’, in M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and E. Raulus (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-making Processes: Advisors, Decision-makers or Irrelevant Actorsm Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 194–215.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, A. (2006) ‘The politics of talk: coming to terms with the “new” scientific governance’, Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320. doi: 10.1177/0306312706053350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klintman, M. and Kronsell, A. (2010) ‘Challenges to legitimacy in food safety governance? The case of the EFSA’, European Integration 32(3): 309–27. doi: 10.1080/07036331003646835
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, J. (2014) ‘The structural logic of expert participation in WTO decision-making processes’, in M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and E. Raulus (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-making Processes: Advisors, Decision-makers or Irrelevant Actors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–93.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaughten, P., Kearnes, M. B., and Wynne, B. (2005) ‘Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?’, Science Communication, doi: 10.1177/1075547005281531.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M.B. and Huberman M.A. (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Millstone, E. (2009) ‘Science, risk and governance: radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance’, Research Policy 38: 624–36. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millstone, E. (2014) ‘Science and decision-making: can we both distinguish and reconcile science and politics?’, in M.B.A.M. Van Asselt, M. Everson and E. Vos (eds), Trade, Health and the Environment The European Union Put to the Test, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–81.
   Google Scholar
• Millstone, E. et al. (2008) Risk-Assessment Policies: Differences across Jurisdictions, Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Millstone, E., van Zwanenberg, P., Marris, C., Levidow, L. and, Torgersen, H. (2004) Science in Trade Disputes Related to Potential Risks: Comparative Case Studies, Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, A. (2007) ‘Biobanks’ “engagements”: engendering trust or engineering consent?’, Life Sciences Society and Policy, doi: 10.1186/1746-5354-3-1-31.
   Google Scholar
• Pintado, C. (2014) ‘A taxonomy of EFSA's scientific outputs’, in A. Alemanno and S. Gabbi (eds), New Directions in EU Food Law and Policy: Ten Years of European Food Safety Authority, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 29–46.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C.M. (1999) Technocracy in the European Union, New York: Longman
   Google Scholar
• Rimkutė, D. and Haverland, M. (2014) ‘How does the European Commission use scientific expertise? Results from a survey of scientific members of the Commission's expert committees’, Comparative European Politics, doi: 10.1057/cep.2013.32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2008) ‘Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations’, Public Understanding of Science 17(4): 419–41. doi: 10.1177/0963662506075351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000) ‘Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation’, Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3–29. doi: 10.1177/016224390002500101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) ‘Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda’, Science, Technology and Human Values 29(4): 512–56. doi: 10.1177/0162243903259197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrefler, L. (2010) ‘The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies’, Governance, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2010.01481.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrefler, L. (2013) Economic Knowledge in Regulation: The Use of Expertise by Independent Agencies, Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks and Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2013) Making Risk Assessment More Relevant for Risk Management, Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd, R. (2008) ‘Involving the public and stakeholders in the evaluation of food risks’, Trends in Food Science and Technology 19(5): 234–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebenhüner, B. (2014) ‘Changing demands at the science-policy interface: organizational learning in the IPCC’, in M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and E. Raulus (eds), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-making Processes: Advisors, Decision-makers or Irrelevant Actors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 126–47.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Lock, S.J. and Wilsdon, J. (2014) ‘Why should we promote public engagement with science?’, Public Understanding of Science, doi:10.1177/0963662513518154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterton, C. and Wynne, B. (2004) ‘Knowledge and political order in the European Environment Agency’, in S. Jasanoff, S. (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, New York: Routledge, pp. 87–108.
   Google Scholar
• Wickson, F. and Wynne, B. (2012) ‘The anglerfish deception’, EMBO Report, 13(2): 100–5. doi: 10.1038/embor.2011.254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar