EDP Sciences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 4 / No 1 (January-March 2005) Environ. Biosafety Res., 4 1 (2005) 13-27 References
Free Access
Issue
Environ. Biosafety Res.
Volume 4, Number 1, January-March 2005
Page(s) 13 - 27
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ebr:2005008
Published online 15 August 2005
  • ACRE (2004) Guidance on best practice in the design of post-market monitoring plans in submission to the advisory committee on releases to the environment. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, London, published at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/postmarket/acre_ postmarketmonitor-guidance.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • Ammann K (2004) The role of science and discourse in the application of the precautionary approach (PA). In Fischer R, Schillberg S, eds, Molecular farming, plant-made pharmaceuticals and technical proteins. Vol. 1. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & co. KGaA Weinheim, pp 291–302 [Google Scholar]
  • Candolfi MP, Brown K, Grimm C, Reber B, Schmidli H (2004) A faunistic approach to assess potential side-effects of genetically modified Bt-corn on non-target arthropods under field conditions. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 14: 129–170 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • CBD (2000) Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, published at: www.biodiv.org/ doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap J-P (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J. 33: 19–46 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dale PJ, Clarke B, Fontes EMG (2002) Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 20: 567–574 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dietl W (1995) Wandel der Wiesenvegetation im Schweizer Mittelland. Z. Ökol. Natursch. 4: 239–249 [Google Scholar]
  • Duelli P (1997) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 62: 81–91 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Duelli P, Obrist MK (1998) In search for the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodiversity Conserv. 7: 297–309 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003a) Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 87–98 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003b) Regional biodiversity in agricultural landscape: the contribution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 129–138 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • European Commission (2000a) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, published at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_ en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • European Commission (2000b) First report on the harmonisation of risk assessment procedures – Part 1 : The Report of the Scientific Steering Committee's Working Group on Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures in the Scientific Committees advising the European Commission in the area of human and environmental health. European Commission – Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Brussels, published at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out83_en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 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. Commission on the European Communities, Brussels [Google Scholar]
  • European Community (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels [Google Scholar]
  • European Council (2002) Council decision of 3 October 2002 establishing guidance notes supplementing Annex VII 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. The Council of the European Union, Luxemburg [Google Scholar]
  • European Union (2003a) Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels [Google Scholar]
  • European Union (2003b) Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Brussels [Google Scholar]
  • Fairweather PG (1991) Statistical power and design requirements for environmental monitoring. Aus. J. Mar. Fresh. Res. 42: 555–567 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • FDA (2005) How to report problems with products regulated by FDA. US Food and Drug Administration. www.fda.gov/opacom/ backgrounders/problem.html [Google Scholar]
  • FrSV (SR 814.911) Verordnung über den Umgang mit Organismen in der Umwelt (Freisetzungsverordnung). Systematische Sammlung des Bundesrechts, Bern [Google Scholar]
  • GTG (SR 814.91) Bundesgesetz über die Gentechnik im Ausserhumanbereich (Gentechnikgesetz). Systematische Sammlung des Bundesrechts, Bern [Google Scholar]
  • Hails RS (2002) Assessing the risks associated with new agricultural practices. Nature 418: 685–688 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hellawell JM (1991) Development of a rationale for monitoring. In Goldsmith B, ed, Monitoring for Conservation and Ecology. Chapman and Hall London, pp 1–14 [Google Scholar]
  • Hill RA, Sendashonga C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: Lessons from chemical risk assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 81–88 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hintermann U, Weber D, Zangger A, Schmill J (2002) Biodiversity Monitoring in Switzerland BDM – interim report. Environmental series. No. 342 Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, Berne, published at: www.umwelt-schweiz.ch/buwal/shop/files/pdf/phpamJ0T6.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • Hunsaker CT (1993) New concepts in environmental monitoring: the question of indicators. Sci. Tot. Environ. Supplement: 77–95 [Google Scholar]
  • Jaffe G (2004) Regulating transgenic crops: a comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgenic Res. 13: 5–19 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • James C (2004) Preview: Global status of commercialized transgenic crops 2004. ISAAA Briefs No. 32, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY [Google Scholar]
  • Jeanneret P, Schüpbach B, Luka H (2003) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 311–320 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lang A (2004) Monitoring the impact of Bt maize on butterflies in the field: estimation of required sample sizes. Environ. Biosafety Res. 3: 55–66 [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Levidow L (2003) Precautionary risk assessment of Bt maize: what uncertainties? J. Invertebr. Pathol. 83: 113–117 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lindner B (2004) Economic issues for plant breeding – public funding and private ownership. Agribusiness Review 12: Paper 6 [Google Scholar]
  • Marvier M (2002) Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecol. Appl. 12: 1119–1124 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • MHRA (2005) Reporting adverse incidents. UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. www.medical-devices.gov.uk/mda/mdawebsitev2.nsf/webvwSectionsMDA/ Reporting+adverse+incidents?Open [Google Scholar]
  • National Research Council (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants – the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academy Press, Washington DC [Google Scholar]
  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity – a Hierarchical Approach. Conserv. Biol. 4: 355–364 [Google Scholar]
  • OECD (1997) Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, Volume 1: Concepts and Framework. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris [Google Scholar]
  • Pearson DL (1995) Selecting indicator taxa for the quantitative assessment of biodiversity. In Hawksworth DL, ed, Biodiversity, Measurements and Estimation. Chapman and Hall London, pp 75–79 [Google Scholar]
  • Perry JN, Rothery P, Clark SJ, Heard MS, Hawes C (2003) Design, analysis and statistical power of the Farm-Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 17–31 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pretty J (2001) The rapid emergence of genetic modification in world agriculture: contested risks and benefits. Environ. Conserv. 28: 248–262 [Google Scholar]
  • Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39: 157–176 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schifferli L (1999) Distribution and habitat use of bird species breeding on Swiss farmland in relation to agricultural intensification. Vogelwelt 120: 151–161 [Google Scholar]
  • Schifferli L (2001) Birds breeding in a changing farmland. Acta Ornith. 36: 35–51 [Google Scholar]
  • Stork NE, Samways MJ (1995) Inventorying and Monitoring. In Heywood VH, Watson RT, eds, Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, pp 453–542 [Google Scholar]
  • Studer-Ehrensberger K (1995) Geschichte und Naturschutz von artenreichen Kulturwiesen in der Schweiz: eine Zusammenschau. Bot. Helvet. 105: 3–16 [Google Scholar]
  • Swiss Web Flora (2004) Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, 2000. www.wsl.ch/land/products/webflora/welcome-de.ehtml [Google Scholar]
  • Vos P, Meelis E, Ter Keurs WJ (2000) A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environ. Monit. Assess. 61: 317–344 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer P (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290: 2088–2093 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]