consumer groups demand non-GM food, while supermarket chains try to provide `clean’ food, i.e. free of any GM ingredients; retailers seek a statutory tolerance threshhold of inadvertent GM `contamination’ , below which GM-derived food does not legally require a `GM’ label, and this request is accommodated in law; organic farmers protest that GM pollen may contaminate their own crops; environmental regulators enforce their own rules restricting the ̄ ow of GM pollen, even by taking violators to court; government advisors warn that GM crops will encourage farmers to spray broad-spectrum herbicides, which may `sterilize’ wildlife habitats, so the government designs ® eld trials to test this risk; yet NGOs denounce the safety tests for failing to prevent `genetic contamination’ of nearby crops.
[1]
Les Levidow,et al.
Release of genetically modified organisms: precautionary legislation
,
1992
.
[2]
Les Levidow,et al.
The greening of biotechnology: GMOs as environment-friendly products
,
1991
.
[3]
Les Levidow,et al.
Advice on biotechnology regulation: the remit and composition of Britain's ACRE
,
1993
.
[4]
David Wield,et al.
European Biotechnology Regulation: Framing the Risk Assessment of a Herbicide-Tolerant Crop
,
1997
.
[5]
John Urry,et al.
Towards a Sociology of Nature
,
1995
.
[6]
L. Levidow,et al.
UK: disputing boundaries of biotechnology regulation
,
1996
.