EDP Sciences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 2 / No 2 (April-June 2003) Environ. Biosafety Res., 2 2 (2003) 81-88 References
Free Access
Issue
Environ. Biosafety Res.
Volume 2, Number 2, April-June 2003
Page(s) 81 - 88
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ebr:2003004
Published online 15 June 2003
  • Barnthouse LW (1994) Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment: the CRAM Perspective. Risk Analysis 14: 251-256 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Begley R (1996) Risk-based remediation guidelines take hold. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30: 438A-441A [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bogen KT (1994) A note on compounded conservatism. Risk Analysis 14: 379-381 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Burmaster DE, Anderson PD (1994) Principles of good practice for the use of Monte Carlo techniques in human health and ecological risk assessments. Risk Analysis 14: 477-481 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Burmaster DE, Harris RH (1993) The magnitude of compounding conservatism in Superfund risk assessments. Risk Analysis 13: 131-134 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environ- ment) (1996) A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance. Prepared by the CCME Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites [Google Scholar]
  • CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1996) Technical guidance documents in support of the Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new substances and the Commission Regulation No. 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances. Brussels, Belgium [Google Scholar]
  • CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) (2001) Regula- tory Directive Dir94-08: Assessing Criteria for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel Traits. Plant Health and Production Division, Plant Biosafety Office [Google Scholar]
  • Chapman P, Paine MD, Arthur AD, Taylor LA (1996) A triad study of sediment quality associated with a major, relatively untreated marine sewage discharge. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32: 47-64 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clarkson TW (1990) Human health risks from methylmercury in fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9: 957-961 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cullen AC (1994) Measures of compounding conservatism in probabilistic risk assessment. Risk Analysis 14: 389-393 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cura JJ (1998) Ecological risk assessment. Water Environ. Res. 70: 968-971 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dakins ME, Toll JE, Small MJ (1994) Risk-based environmental remediation: decision framework and role of uncertainty. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13: 1907-1915 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dakins ME, Toll JE, Small MJ, Brand KP (1996) Risk-based environmental remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis and the expected value of sample information. Risk Analysis 16: 67-79 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2000) Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management - Revised Departmental Guidance. United Kingdom [Google Scholar]
  • DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions) (1999) Guidance on principles for risk assessment and monitoring for the release of genetically modified organisms. DETR/ACRE guidance note 12, London, UK [Google Scholar]
  • EC (European Commission) (1998) Quantitative Environ- mental Risk Assessment for Genetically Modified Organ- isms. Institute for Health and Consumer Protection [Google Scholar]
  • EC (European Community) (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, 12 March 2001 [Google Scholar]
  • EC (European Commission) (2002) Commission decision of 24 July 2002 establishing guidance notes supplementing Annex II to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC [Google Scholar]
  • Edmonds Institute (1998) Manual for Assessing Ecological and Human Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Organisms. Prepared by the Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety [Google Scholar]
  • Ellison AM (1996) An introduction to Bayesian inference for ecological research and environmental decision-making. Ecol. Appl. 6: 1036-1046 [Google Scholar]
  • EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1997) Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment. Part 1. Planning and Scoping, Science Policy Council, EPA, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1998) Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 630/R-95-002F, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority) (1999) Identifying risks for applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, ER-TG-01-1 9/99, New Zealand [Google Scholar]
  • ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority) (2000a) Preparing information on risks, costs and benefits for applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, ER-TG-03-1 7/00, New Zealand [Google Scholar]
  • ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority) (2000b) Assessment of effects of hazardous substances and new organisms on human health, ER-TG-02-1 1/00, New Zealand [Google Scholar]
  • Fiksel JR, Covello VT (1986) The suitability and applicability of risk assessment methods for environmental applications of biotechnology. In Fiksel JR, Covello VT, eds, Biotechnology Risk Assessment - Issues and Methods for Environmental Introductions. Permagon Press, pp 1-34 [Google Scholar]
  • Finkel AM (1990) Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • Finkel AM (1994) Risk assessment research: only the beginning. Risk Analysis 14: 907-911 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Finley B, Paustenbach D (1994) The benefits of probabilistic exposure assessment: three case studies involving contaminated air, water and soil. Risk Analysis 14: 53-73 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Francis RICC (1992) Use of risk analysis to assess fishery management strategies: a case study using orange roughy on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 922-930 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gaylor DW, Chen JJ, Sheehan DM (1993) Uncertainty in cancer risk assessments. Risk Analysis 13: 149-154 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hamilton JT, Viscusi WK (1994) Human health risk assessments for Superfund. Ecol. Law Q. 21: 573-610 [Google Scholar]
  • Harvey T, Mahaffey KR, Velazquez S, Dourson M (1995) Holistic risk assessment: an emerging process for environ- mental decisions. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 22: 110-117 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hill RA (1996) From science to decision-making: the applicability of Bayesian methods to risk assessment. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 2: 636-642 [Google Scholar]
  • Hill RA, Chapman PM, Mann GS, Lawrence GS (2000) Level of detail in ecological risk assessments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40: 471-477 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ingersoll CG, Dillon T, Biddinger GR (1997) Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, USA [Google Scholar]
  • Kappeli O, Auberson L (1998) How safe is safe enough in plant genetic engineering? Trends Plant Sci. 3: 276-281 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kjaer C, Damgaard C, Kjellsson G, Strandberg B, Strandberg M (1999) Ecological risk assessment of genetically modified higher plants - identification of data needs. NERI Technical Report No. 303. Ministry of Environment and Energy, National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark [Google Scholar]
  • Kjellsson G (1997) Principles and procedures for ecological risk assessment of transgenic plants. In Kjellsson G, Simonsen V, Ammann K, eds, Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants II - Pollination, Gene-Transfer and Population Impacts. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, pp 221-236 [Google Scholar]
  • Maguire LA (1991) Risk analysis for conservation biologists. Conserv. Biol. 5: 123-125 [Google Scholar]
  • Mathes K, Winter G (1993) Ecological risk assessment and the regulation of chemicals: 3. Balancing risks and benefits. Sci. Total Environ., supplement 1993: 1679-1687 [Google Scholar]
  • McCarty LS (1997) Environmental risk assessment within a decision making framework. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16: 122-123 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • McKone TE, Bogen KT (1991) Predicting the uncertainties in risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25: 1674-1681 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Menzie C, Henning MH, Cura J, Findelstein K, Gentile J, Maughan M, Metchell D, Petron S, Potocki B, Sversky S, Tyler P (1996) Special report of the Massachusetts weight- of-evidence workgroup: a weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risk. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 2: 277-304 [Google Scholar]
  • Miller LM, Kapuscinski AR, Senanan W (2002) A biosafety approach to addressing risks posed by aquaculture escapees. Proceedings of the Expert Consultation on Biosafety and Environmental Impact of Genetic Enhancement and Introduction of Improved Tilapia Strains/Alien Species in Africa, 20-23 February 2002, Nairobi, Kenya. Published by the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) [Google Scholar]
  • Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty - A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
  • Nickson TE, McKee MJ (2002) Ecological assessment of crops derived through biotechnology. In Thomas JA, Fuchs FL, eds, Biotechnology and Safety Assessment, 3rd edn. Academic Press, pp 233-252 [Google Scholar]
  • North DW, Balson WE (1985) Risk assessment and acid rain policy: a decision framework that includes uncertainty. In Mandelbaumn P, ed, Proceedings of the conference Acid Rain: Economic Assessment. Plenum Press, New York [Google Scholar]
  • NRC (National Research Council) (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • NRC (National Research Council) (1993) Issues in Risk Assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • NRC (National Research Council) (1996) Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • NRC (National Research Council) (2002) Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants - the Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • OGTR (Office of the Gene Technology Regulator) (2001) Risk assessment framework for license applications to the office of the gene technology regulator, Canberra, Australia [Google Scholar]
  • OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy) (2001) Case Studies of Environmental Regulations for Biotechnology, Executive Office of the President, United States of America, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • PCT (Pew Charitable Trust) (2002) Three years later: Genetically engineered corn and the monarch butterfly controversy. Issue Brief, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Document available free of charge at http:// www.pewtrusts.com [Google Scholar]
  • Peterman RM (1990) Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 2-15 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Power M, McCarty LS (1997) Fallacies in ecological risk assessment practices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: 370A-375A [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Punt AE, Hilborn R (1997) Fisheries stock assessment and decision analysis: the Bayesian approach. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 7: 35-63 [Google Scholar]
  • Reckhow KH (1994) Importance of Scientific Uncertainty in Decision Making. Environ. Manage. 18: 161-166 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment. PNAS 98: 11937-11942 [Google Scholar]
  • Strandberg B, Kjellsson G, Lokke H (1998) Hierarchical risk assessment of transgenic plants: proposal for an integrated system. Biosafety J. 4: 21 [Google Scholar]
  • Strauss HS (1991) Lessons from chemical risk assessment. In Levin MA, Strauss HS, eds, Risk Assessment in Genetic Engineering. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York, pp 297-318 [Google Scholar]
  • Suter GW II (1990) Uncertainty in Environmental Risk Assessment. In Furstenberg GM, ed, Acting Under Uncer- tainty: Multidisciplinary Conceptions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 203-230 [Google Scholar]
  • Suter GW II (1993) Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton [Google Scholar]
  • Thompson GG (1992) A Bayesian approach to management advice when stock-recruitment parameters are uncertain. Fish. Bull. 90: 561-573 [Google Scholar]
  • UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) (1995) UNEP International Technical Guidelines for Safety in Biotechnology [Google Scholar]
  • Vatter PA, Bradley SP, Frey Jr SP, Jackson BB (1978) Quantitative Methods in Management: Text and Cases. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Illinois [Google Scholar]
  • Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Blackburn Press [Google Scholar]