Biotechnology policy

A. Gore, Planning a New Biotechnology Policy, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology5 (1991) 19-50. 

Coni Refiners Association, Inc., 1997 Corn Annual, Washington. DC, 1997. Council on Competitiveness, Office of llie Vice Piesideul, repoitReport on National Biotechnology Policy, Washington, DC, 1991. 

MAFF) are the major ministries involved in implementing government biotechnology policies. The Prime Minister s Council for Science and Technology coordinates the respective administrative objects of each body. 

Pimentel, D. In Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture Policy Alternatives Fessenden MacDonald, J., Ed. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, NY, 1989 pp. 69-74. 

National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering-Institute of Medicine, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. "Report of the Research Briefing Panel on Chemical and Process Engineering for Biotechnology," in Research Briefings 1984. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press, 1984. 

Hadfield, G., Howse, R., and Trebilcock, M.J. 1998. Information-based principles biotechnology is influenced not only by their perceptions about the magnitude of the for rethinking consumer protection policy. J. Consum. Policy 21, 131-169. 

Roberts, M. 1994. A consumer view of biotechnology. Consum. Policy Rev. 4, 99-104. 

Sheehy, H., Legault, M., and Ireland, D. 1998. Consumer and biotechnology A synopsis of survey and focus group research. J. Consum. Policy 21, 359-386. 

Wohl, J.B. 1998. Consumers decision-making and risk perceptions regarding foods produced with biotechnology. J. Consum. Policy 21, 387 104. 

If public opinion shapes EU policy, then a certain amount of uncertainty surrounds the future of agri-food biotechnology. The lack of equilibrium between the EU and the US adds to the global uncertainty over the issue since both are powerful political and trade powers and have yet to find common ground. This section will interpret the consequences of this uncertainty as the national and industrial responses to changes in their economic interests. 

This chapter is based on a presentation to the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank in April 2002. A similar version of the paper was published by Georgetown Public Policy Review and by the Dallas Fed in Science and Cents The Economics of Biotechnology. 

The Georgetown Public Policy Review, 8, 7-24, 2003 Science Cents Exploring the Economics of Biotechnology, in Proceedings of a Conference, 2002, Sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Ducca, J.V. and Yucel, M.K., Eds., Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2003, pp. 87-104. 

Since risk analysis plays an important role in public policy decision making, efforts have been made to devise a means by which to identify, control, and communicate the risks imposed by agricultural biotechnology. A paradigm of environmental risk assessment was first introduced in the United States by Peterson and Arntzen in 2004. In this risk assessment, a number of assumptions and uncertainties were considered and presented. These include (1) problem formulation, (2) hazard identihcation, (3) dose-response relationships, (4) exposure assessment, and (5) risk characterization. Risk assessment of plant-made pharmaceuticals must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis because the plants used to produce proteins each have different risks associated with them. Many plant-derived biopharmaceuticals will challenge our ability to define an environmental hazard (Howard and Donnelly, 2004). For example, the expression of a bovine-specihc antigen produced in a potato plant and used orally in veterinary medicine would have a dramatically different set of criteria for assessment of risk than, as another example, the expression of a neutralizing nonspecihc oral antibody developed in maize to suppress Campylobacter jejuni in chickens (Peterson and Arntzen, 2004 Kirk et al., 2005). 

The standard stocks of the positive and negative serum were obtained from the State Research Institute of Biotechnology and Strains of Microorganisms Control of the Ministry of Agroindustrial Policy of Ukraine as well as from the National Reference Laboratory for EBI (Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Germany). 

URL http //www.phrma.org E-mail web form Phone (202) 835-3400 950 F Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Represents leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the United States and advocates for public policies that support the efforts of companies to discover and market new medicines. 

---