2 resultados para initialisation flaws
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
Biotechnology refers to the broad set of techniques that allow genetic manipulation of organisms. The techniques of biotechnology have broad implications for many industries, however it promises the greatest innovations in the production of products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Like many other powerful new technologies, biotechnology may carry risks as well as benefits. Several of its applications have engendered fervent emotional reactions and raised serious ethical concerns, especially internationally. ^ First, in my paper I discuss the historical and technical background of biotechnology. Second, I examine the development of biotechnology in Europe, the citizens' response to genetically modified (“GM”) foods and the governments' response. Third, I examine the regulation of bioengineered products and foods in the United States. ^ In conclusion, there are various problems with the current status of regulation of GM foods in the United States. These are four basic flaws: (1) the Coordinated Framework allows for too much jurisdictional overlap of biotechnological foods, (2) GM foods are considered GRAS and consequently, are placed on the market without pre-market approval, (3) federal mandatory labeling of GM foods cannot occur until the question of whether or not nondisclosure of a genetic engineering production processes is misleading or material information and (4) an independent state-labeling scheme of GM foods will most likely impede interstate commerce. ^
Resumo:
In December, 1980, following increasing congressional and constituent-interest in problems associated with hazardous waste, the Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed. During its development, the legislative initiative was seriously compromised which resulted in a less exhaustive approach than was formerly sought. Still, CERCLA (Superfund) which established, among other things, authority to clean up abandoned waste dumps and to respond to emergencies caused by releases of hazardous substances was welcomed by many as an important initial law critical to the cleanup of the nation's hazardous waste. Expectations raised by passage of this bill were tragically unmet. By the end of four years, only six sites had been declared by the EPA as cleaned. Seemingly, even those determinations were liberal; of the six sites, two were identified subsequently as requiring further cleanup.^ This analysis is focused upon the implementation failure of the Superfund. In light of that focus, discussion encompasses development of linkages between flaws in the legislative language and foreclosure of chances for implementation success. Specification of such linkages is achieved through examination of the legislative initiative, identification of its flaws and characterization of attendant deficits in implementation ability. Subsequent analysis is addressed to how such legislative frailities might have been avoided and to attendant regulatory weaknesses which have contributed to implementation failure. Each of these analyses are accomplished through application of an expanded approach to the backward mapping analytic technique as presented by Elmore. Results and recommendations follow.^ Consideration is devoted to a variety of regulatory issues as well as to those pertinent to legislative and implementation analysis. Problems in assessing legal liability associated with hazardous waste management are presented, as is a detailed review of the legislative development of Superfund, and its initial implementation by Gorsuch's EPA. ^