• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >GM food labels: Is it the need to know or the right to know---label what and why? An interdisciplinary risk analysis methodological comparison in the context of green biotechnology and food labelling.
【24h】

GM food labels: Is it the need to know or the right to know---label what and why? An interdisciplinary risk analysis methodological comparison in the context of green biotechnology and food labelling.

机译：转基因食品标签：需要知道还是知道的权利-标签什么以及为什么？在绿色生物技术和食品标签中进行跨学科风险分析的方法学比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The debate on the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food (GM) pivots on two justifications: the seemingly imperious right to know (RTK) and the seemingly paternalistic need to know (NTK). Of these two approaches, which is more efficient and rational?The social school considers food culture and values when determining risk, and manages that determination via the precautionary principle (PP), with a view to "prove it is safe." Multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the Cartagena Protocol manifest this approach to GM. The science school considers the physical realities arising from botany and breeding (e.g., allergen proteins). The school then manages the actual risks arising from those realities using cost-benefit analysis aiming for an outcome of "no evidence of harm." This is the approach followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO).The GM labelling debate typically eschews any in-depth analysis of botany, agriculture, and economics. Consequently, the debate has operated without the knowledge that cross-species breeding barriers were overcome before rDNA and under misconceptions concerning botany, agricultural production and breeding processes, and the nature and processing of food. The resulting question for GM labels now becomes: label what, and why?The RTK is thus infinite, fluid, and labile, and resonates with many in the democratic polity. Yet, with such traits, RTK is as much a device for dirigisme as for risk management, with the attendant consumption of societal resources. The RTK advocates caution. The NTK provides principled focus by addressing actual risk from food crops in the context of all breeding techniques and food production and processing systems. NTK bespeaks innovation, and innovation can beget societal resilience.The premise of the controversy---the identification and management of risk---has bifurcated into two risk analysis schools. The science school operates on actual risk inherent in the product, to wit: food it engages the NTK. The social school operates on perceived risk from transcendental considerations associated with the process, to wit: recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid technology (rDNA) it engages the RTK. These polarities mesh with the main sociological risk culture groups defined by Wildavsky, and may be suggestive of the virulence of the debate.
机译：关于转基因食品强制标签的辩论有两个理由：看似无知的知情权（RTK）和看似家长式的知情权（NTK）。在这两种方法中，哪一种更为有效和合理？社会学校在确定风险时会考虑饮食文化和价值观，并通过预防原则（PP）来管理该确定，以“证明它是安全的”。 《卡塔赫纳议定书》等多边环境协定（MEA）证明了这种转基因方法。科学学校考虑了植物学和育种产生的物理现实（例如过敏原蛋白）。然后，学校使用成本效益分析来管理由这些现实带来的实际风险，其目的是“没有伤害的证据”。这是世界贸易组织（WTO）遵循的方法。转基因标签辩论通常避免对植物学，农业和经济学进行任何深入分析。因此，这场辩论是在不了解跨物种育种障碍的情况下进行的，该种障碍在rDNA之前以及在关于植物学，农业生产和育种过程以及食物的性质和加工的误解下已经克服。现在，针对通用汽车标签的问题变成了：标签什么，为什么？RTK因此是无限的，流动的和不稳定的，并在民主政体中引起了许多共鸣。然而，RTK具有这样的特性，它既是风险管理的工具，也是风险管理的工具，伴随着社会资源的消耗。 RTK提倡谨慎。 NTK通过在所有育种技术以及粮食生产和加工系统的背景下解决粮食作物的实际风险来提供有原则的关注。 NTK代表创新，创新可以提高社会适应力。争议的前提-风险的识别和管理-已分为两个风险分析流派。科学学校根据产品固有的实际风险来运作，例如：与NTK接触的食物。这所社会学校的运作基于与流程相关的先验考虑的风险，例如：重组脱氧核糖核酸技术（rDNA）参与了RTK。这些两极分化与Wildavsky定义的主要社会风险文化群有关，并且可能暗示了辩论的威力。

著录项

  • 作者

    Benda, Stan F.;

  • 作者单位

    York University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 York University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Agriculture Food Science and Technology.Law.Business Administration Management.Health Sciences Nutrition.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 656 p.
  • 总页数 656
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号