SNIDEI which it must be made available for general inspection within two weeks. This will involve publishing it in one or more national daily newspapers, free local papers, and in the State Gazette, after which the administrative bodies concerned may give their recommendations in relation to the decision to be taken, while any one may lodge their objections to the draft decision in writing within four weeks of its publication During this period, everyone has the opportunity to exchange views on the draft and express their objections verbally upon request. If this opportunity is taken up, the applicant must also be invited. Then the decision is taken-in principle within six months of the application- whereby the Minister is also required to state his considerations regarding the objections raised Restrictions and other types of regulations may be attached to the issue of a permit(Section 26 subsection 4 of the Hazardous Substances Act). Acting of his own accord or at the request of the pemit holder or other interested parties, the minister may amend, add to or revoke restrictions and regulations, im pose additional restrictions or attach regulations to the permit at a later date, or revoke the pemit as ch(Section 24 subsection 4 BGGO) If such a decision is not made at the request of the permit holder himself, the Minister will only proceed with such a decision in the interests of protectingman and the environment. If the a pplicant or perm it holder leams of new infomation concerning risks that the genetically modified organisms or their treatment may cause for man and the environment, he must inform the Minister immediately. In addition, he must also take measures straight away that are necessary to protect man and the environment (Section 25 BGGO) Section 26 of the BGGO obliges the permit holder to inform the Minister of the isks to man and the environment once the activ ity has been completed There is a Committee for Genetic Modification(COGEM), which advises the Minister on the risks associated with the manufacture of and activities with genetically modified organisms, as well as on the ethical or socil aspects relating to activ ities with such organisms. The Dutch govemment considered submitting a proposal to the States-General in the pring of 1992 for a specific Act to deal with all legally relevant aspects of genetically modified organisms. The wish for this was largely the result of the im portance of proper harmonization of the legislation concerning this as a subject considered important. However, based on an extensive analysis carried out by the ministries involved, this was decided against. Ultimately the government felt it better to acquire experience first with the legislative frameworks already in place and those in preparation in the area of genetic modification. Meanwhile the plan for separate gral legislation would appear to have be The above shows that the introduction of genetically modified organisms and crops See here the Explanatory Memorandum to the Decree for the amendment of the BGGOdated 3 July 1992, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 1992, 376. For the results of the analysis, see the SJ.R Bostyn& oo, Mbdeme biotechnologieen recht, ( Modem biotechnology and law, RechtSNIJDERS 4 which it must be made available for general inspection within two weeks. This will involve publishing it in one or more national daily newspapers, free local papers, and in the State Gazette, after which the administrative bodies concerned may give their recommendations in relation to the decision to be taken, while anyone may lodge their objections to the draft decision in writing within four weeks of its publication. During this period, everyone has the opportunity to exchange views on the draft and express their objections verbally upon request. If this opportunity is taken up, the applicant must also be invited. Then the decision is taken - in principle within six months of the application - whereby the Minister is also required to state his considerations regarding the objections raised. Restrictions and other types of regulations may be attached to the issue of a permit (Section 26 subsection 4 of the Hazardous Substances Act). Acting of his own accord or at the request of the permit holder or other interested parties, the Minister may amend, add to or revoke restrictions and regulations, impose additional restrictions or attach regulations to the permit at a later date, or revoke the permit as such (Section 24 subsection 4 BGGO). If such a decision is not made at the request of the permit holder himself, the Minister will only proceed with such a decision in the interests of protecting man and the environment. If the applicant or permit holder learns of new information concerning risks that the genetically modified organisms or their treatment may cause for man and the environment, he must inform the Minister immediately. In addition, he must also take measures straight away that are necessary to protect man and the environment (Section 25 BGGO). Section 26 of the BGGO obliges the permit holder to inform the Minister of the risks to man and the environment once the activity has been completed. There is a Committee for Genetic Modification (COGEM), which advises the Minister on the risks associated with the manufacture of and activities with genetically modified organisms, as well as on the ethical or social aspects relating to activities with such organisms. The Dutch government considered submitting a proposal to the States-General in the spring of 1992 for a specific Act to deal with all legally relevant aspects of genetically modified organisms. The wish for this was largely the result of the importance of proper harmonization of the legislation concerning this as a subject considered important. However, based on an extensive analysis carried out by the ministries involved, this was decided against. Ultimately the government felt it better to acquire experience first with the legislative frameworks already in place and those in preparation in the area of genetic modification.2 Meanwhile the plan for separate, integral legislation would appear to have been abandoned.3 The above shows that the introduction of genetically modified organisms and crops 2. See here the Explanatory Memorandum to the Decree for the amendment of the BGGO dated 3 July 1992, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 1992, 376. For the results of the analysis, see the Parliamentary Documents II 1991/1992, 22300 XI, no. 11. 3. S.J.R. Bostyn & co., Moderne biotechnologie en recht, (Modem biotechnology and law), Recht en Praktijk 85, Kluwer, Deventer, 2001, p. 22-23