Another controversy surrounding the development and use of GE foods and crops is who participates in risk analysis and the risk decision-making process.Risk analysis is the integration of science-based risk assessment with inputs from public policy,which integrates science into a wider context of social, cultural,political,and economic determinants.Whereas risk assessment is a highly formalized and detailed process that is carried out by technical experts,risk analysis is characterized as an analytic- deliberative process that seeks input from stakeholders regarding how uncertainty should be addressed The rationale and importance of engaging in risk analysis have been summarized by Auberson-Huang: Opening the dialogue between precaution and risk with civil society is a move towards a systems approach,where all variables are admitted simultaneously for the characterization,framing, management,and communication of risks.A dialogue between precaution and risk is a dialogue between science and society. In the risk analysis process,good science is considered necessary and indispensable but not sufficient for good risk characterization because risk decisions are ultimately public policy choices.On a societal level,use of a risk analysis approach to inform public policy making could be achieved through use of various deliberative processes:expert panels,citizen juries,stakeholder decision analysis,and deliberative polling.And while participatory approaches to risk analysis and risk decision-making have been used in various parts of the world,for example,Denmark,Norway,the United Kingdom,and Japan,their use in the United States has been limited In 1996,the NRC Committee on Risk Characterization released a report in which it recommended that federal agencies incorporate iterative interaction between technical analysis and social deliberation when developing health,safety,and environmental regulations.In this framework,there are 3 rationales for including broad participation in risk characterization:normative,substantive,and instrumental. Normative rationale is that governments should obtain the consent of the governed and that citizens have a right to participate meaningfully in public decision making and to be informed about the bases for government decisions.S ubstantive rationale is that participation by people with diverse experiences will provide key information and insights to risk analysis.Instrumental rationale is the premise that broad participation enhances the chances of reducing conflict and increases acceptance and trust in risk decisions made by governments and international bodies.Crucial to this framework is the recursive interplay between analysis and deliberation in reaching some degree of agreement among scientists governments,and affected and interested social groups over the risks that should be treated as possible hazards.The Scientists'Working Group on Biosafety and the biotechnology "Safety First Initiative, that is,a public-private partnership formed to facilitate the transparent development of proactive safety standards that anticipate and resolve safety issues as far upstream as possible,are two examples of recent projects that have used the NRC risk characterization process to assess the environmental and human health effects of GEOs. Labeling and the Consumer Right to Know Labeling issues span science,public policy,consumer education,and consumer right to know issues. Currently,the FDA does not require labeling of foods derived from bioengineering because it believes that the process used in producing a crop or food is irrelevant as long as the nutritional content remains the same as its nonbioengineered counterpart.In 2001,the FDA proposed guidance to the food industry for voluntary labeling of GE foods.However,without stricter government regulations regarding cross- contamination of GE and non-GE crops,the FDA's guidance is of little value,and food labels such as "biotech free"may prove to be misleading.Also misleading,according to the FDA,is the fact that such phrases could imply that nonbioengineered food is superior to bioengineered food.Hence,the FDA's proposed labeling guidance shifts the burden of responsibility from the companies developing and marketing GE foods onto producers and companies marketing the product,which are typically thoseAnother controversy surrounding the development and use of GE foods and crops is who participates in risk analysis and the risk decision-making process. Risk analysis is the integration of science-based risk assessment with inputs from public policy, which integrates science into a wider context of social, cultural, political, and economic determinants. Whereas risk assessment is a highly formalized and detailed process that is carried out by technical experts, risk analysis is characterized as an analytic￾deliberative process that seeks input from stakeholders regarding how uncertainty should be addressed. The rationale and importance of engaging in risk analysis have been summarized by Auberson-Huang: Opening the dialogue between precaution and risk with civil society is a move towards a systems approach, where all variables are admitted simultaneously for the characterization, framing, management, and communication of risks. A dialogue between precaution and risk is a dialogue between science and society. In the risk analysis process, good science is considered necessary and indispensable but not sufficient for good risk characterization because risk decisions are ultimately public policy choices. On a societal level, use of a risk analysis approach to inform public policy making could be achieved through use of various deliberative processes: expert panels, citizen juries, stakeholder decision analysis, and deliberative polling. And while participatory approaches to risk analysis and risk decision-making have been used in various parts of the world, for example, Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Japan, their use in the United States has been limited. In 1996, the NRC Committee on Risk Characterization released a report in which it recommended that federal agencies incorporate iterative interaction between technical analysis and social deliberation when developing health, safety, and environmental regulations. In this framework, there are 3 rationales for including broad participation in risk characterization: normative, substantive, and instrumental. Normative rationale is that governments should obtain the consent of the governed and that citizens have a right to participate meaningfully in public decision making and to be informed about the bases for government decisions. S ubstantive rationale is that participation by people with diverse experiences will provide key information and insights to risk analysis. Instrumental rationale is the premise that broad participation enhances the chances of reducing conflict and increases acceptance and trust in risk decisions made by governments and international bodies. Crucial to this framework is the recursive interplay between analysis and deliberation in reaching some degree of agreement among scientists, governments, and affected and interested social groups over the risks that should be treated as possible hazards. The Scientists' Working Group on Biosafety and the biotechnology "Safety First Initiative," that is, a public-private partnership formed to facilitate the transparent development of proactive safety standards that anticipate and resolve safety issues as far upstream as possible, are two examples of recent projects that have used the NRC risk characterization process to assess the environmental and human health effects of GEOs. Labeling and the Consumer Right to Know Labeling issues span science, public policy, consumer education, and consumer right to know issues. Currently, the FDA does not require labeling of foods derived from bioengineering because it believes that the process used in producing a crop or food is irrelevant as long as the nutritional content remains the same as its nonbioengineered counterpart. In 2001, the FDA proposed guidance to the food industry for voluntary labeling of GE foods. However, without stricter government regulations regarding cross￾contamination of GE and non-GE crops, the FDA's guidance is of little value, and food labels such as "biotech free" may prove to be misleading. Also misleading, according to the FDA, is the fact that such phrases could imply that nonbioengineered food is superior to bioengineered food. Hence, the FDA's proposed labeling guidance shifts the burden of responsibility from the companies developing and marketing GE foods onto producers and companies marketing the product, which are typically those