IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/assjnl/v16y2020i8p33.html

Implications of Risk Governance in Genetically Modified Food: A Comparative Discussion on European and United States Contexts

Author

Listed:
  • A B M Enamol Hassan
  • Nazma Afroz

Abstract

The rapid growth of world population has increased the demand for Genetically Modified Food (GMF) to fulfill the global nutritional needs. Simultaneously, it also needs to understand the cross-national contexts based on the risk governance of this newly emergence of food technologies. Thus, the paper tries to exhibit a comparison on GMF between United States (US) and European Union (EU) using the risk governance framework. Hence, the study uses the risk governance framework as a model that incorporates risk assessment, concern assessment, risk characterization and evaluation, risk management, and risk communication. The paper is based on secondary source of data collection and the two areas (US and EU) is purposively selected for this comparative discussion. The result shows recent controversies on usage of GMF between US and EU highlighting the apparent differences that does exist in all spheres of risk governance.

Suggested Citation

  • A B M Enamol Hassan & Nazma Afroz, 2020. "Implications of Risk Governance in Genetically Modified Food: A Comparative Discussion on European and United States Contexts," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(8), pages 1-33, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:assjnl:v:16:y:2020:i:8:p:33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/0/0/43309/45381
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/0/43309
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joyce Tait, 2001. "More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 175-189, April.
    2. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    3. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 273-292, March.
    4. Susanna Hornig Priest & Heinz Bonfadelli & Maria Rusanen, 2003. "The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 751-766, August.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    3. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    4. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    5. Lang, John T., 2013. "Elements of public trust in the American food system: Experts, organizations, and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 145-154.
    6. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    7. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    8. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    9. Kanerva, Minna, 2009. "Assessing risk discourses: Nano S&T in the Global South," MERIT Working Papers 2009-063, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    11. de Jonge, Janneke & van Trijp, J.C.M. & Renes, Reint Jan & van der Lans, Ivo A.C.M. & Frewer, Lynn J., 2006. "Trust: The Importance of Distinguishing between Different Actors and Dimensions," 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany 7731, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    13. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    14. D Rigby, 2004. "GM Food, Risk, Regulation and the EU-US Trade Dispute," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0410, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    15. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    16. Huang, Yi-Hui Christine & Cai, Qinxian & Wang, Xiaohui & Sun, Jie, 2025. "What drives public support for health policies ? The protection-motivated mediating model of institutional trust and risk paradox," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 383(C).
    17. Lyall, Catherine & Tait, Joyce, 2019. "Beyond the limits to governance: New rules of engagement for the tentative governance of the life sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1128-1137.
    18. Schweizer, Pia-Johanna & Bovet, Jana, 2016. "The potential of public participation to facilitate infrastructure decision-making: Lessons from the German and European legal planning system for electricity grid expansion," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 64-73.
    19. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke, 2013. "A Framework of Adaptive Risk Governance for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-24, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:assjnl:v:16:y:2020:i:8:p:33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.