DOCSLIB.ORG

Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms: Law, Science, Policy and Practice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms: Law, Science, Policy and Practice Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms: Law, Science, Policy and Practice By Li Du A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Law University of Alberta © Li Du, 2014 Abstract The labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been the subject of a global debate for decades. This dissertation, by conducting comprehensive and inter-disciplinary research – from legal, scientific, political and practical perspectives, aims to provide an in-depth analysis of fundamental factors that have contributed to the formation of different labeling regimes, and to justify claims of significant concerns that an optimal labeling regime should be based on and protect. It finds that not only rationales for a mandatory GMO labeling system cannot be justified but also the implementation of mandatory labeling measures may trigger a number of pragmatic problems. It is worth noting that mandatory GMO labeling measures, which lead to conflicts in global agricultural trade, might well violate WTO trade law obligations that are binding on Canada, China, the EU and the US etc. Based on these findings, this study supports voluntary labeling requirements and stands in sharp contrast to the mandatory labeling regimes implemented by the EU and other jurisdictions. It argues that three conditions should be considered to establish an optimal GMO domestic labeling regime. They are: (1) the regime must be based on scientific evidence; (2) it must employ scientific risk assessment and management as the basis for labeling requirements; and (3) the labeling should be accurate and the mission of GMO labeling should be primarily to protect the health of consumers. It thereby suggests that the mandatory labeling requirement should be abandoned in all jurisdictions, and replaced with a voluntary labeling regime and a globally harmonized system of GMO approval procedures and ii detection methods. The dissertation ends with some lessons drawn from the current GMO labeling controversies to ensure better management of future GMO labeling conflicts and regulation of new agricultural biotechnology. It offers suggestions for perfecting the current Canadian GMO labeling regime. iii Acknowledgements From the bottom of my heart, I would love to express my appreciation for my co-supervisors: Professor Linda Reif and Professor Timothy Caulfield. The mentorship I have received from them constitutes the most valuable experience during my PhD study at University of Alberta Faculty of Law. I am also grateful to the other members of my supervisory committee, Professor Erin Nelson and Professor Glenn Griener for their consistent support over the years and insightful contributions to my dissertation. I also express my appreciation for all the other faculty members and staff of the University of Alberta Faculty of Law who have helped me to get through my PhD journey, especially Kim Wilson, Professor Moin A. Yahya, Associate Dean Professor Steven Penney, and former Dean of the Faculty of Law Professor Philip Bryden. In particular, I want to acknowledge the health law research team, Professor Ubaka Ogbogu, Robyn Hyde-Lay, Christen Rachul, and all other members of the Health Law Institute. My sincere thanks also go to the Chinese Scholarship Council and University of Alberta Faculty of Law. Their generous financial support allows me to devote all my time to this thrilling and productive PhD program. I would love to thank the Canadian Institute of Health Research for accepting me as a fellow of the Training Program in Health Law, Ethics and Policy. I also thank the Canadian Stem Cell Network for making me part of the Trainee Communications Committee. iv All these involvements have dramatically enriched my PhD study experience, providing me with numerous opportunities for networking with internationally leading scholars, presenting my research and working with talented people. I am very grateful to my supervisor Professor Yujun Guo at Wuhan University School of Law, and President of the China University of Political Science and Law Professor Jin Huang for their great support of my study abroad. I finish with my deepest gratitude to my wife Jing and all my family. They are definitely amazing. Without their selfless love and unconditional support, all my achievements would be impossible. Thank you, thank you, thank you. v Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. x Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 A. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1 B. GMO Labeling regimes...................................................................................................................... 3 C. Problem statement ............................................................................................................................. 5 D. Central Thesis ................................................................................................................................... 11 E. Definitions and scope........................................................................................................................ 13 F. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 16 G. Structure of this dissertation ........................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 2 The Labeling of GMOs, International Food, Agricultural, and International Environmental Law ...................................................................................................................... 26 A. International food and agricultural law ......................................................................................... 27 1. UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) .............................................................................. 27 2. The Codex Alimentarius Commission ............................................................................................ 29 3. The Codex Committee on Food Labeling ...................................................................................... 31 B. International Environmental Law .................................................................................................. 38 1. The Convention on Biological Diversity ........................................................................................ 39 2. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol ... 42 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 52 Chapter 3 GMOs Labeling and the WTO Agreements ............................................................ 55 A. WTO Background ............................................................................................................................ 56 B. Applicable rules for GMO labeling under the WTO system ........................................................ 58 1. The GATT 1994 and its Article XX General Exception ................................................................ 58 2. The SPS Agreement ........................................................................................................................ 60 3. TBT Agreement .............................................................................................................................. 65 C. Applying the WTO agreements to GMO labeling ......................................................................... 68 1. Applying Article XX of the GATT 1994........................................................................................ 69 2. Applying the SPS Agreement ......................................................................................................... 74 3. Applying the TBT Agreement ........................................................................................................ 78 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 97 Chapter 4 Different Labeling Regimes: European Union, Canada and China .................... 101 vi A. EU .................................................................................................................................................... 101 1. Regime Review ............................................................................................................................. 104 2 Summary of labeling requirements ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mon-810-Pollen
    mon-810-pollen Organisation: Dr. Steisslinger Consulting Country: Germany Type: Consultant a. Assessment: 3. Environmental risk assessment GMO plants do not belong into the environment!!! Safety has never been properly established. I oppose vehemntly any relaease into the environment. Organisation: E3D Country: France Type: Association a. Assessment: Molecular characterisation The implanted genes are truncated and therefore their expression is not identical to that produced and expressed by Bacillus Thurigensis as an insecticide. b. Food Safety Assessment: Toxicology No studies covering a period longer than three months have ever been produced by the breeder (Monsanto). A study over at least two years should have been necessary for the maize to gain appoval. Why is the pollen not tested over two years? Allergenicity Ditto Nutritional assessment Substantial equivalence is a complete fraud, accepted by the ..... of the US Food and Drug Administration. Why? 3. Environmental risk assessment No studies have ever been produced by Monsanto. 4. Conclusions and recommendations Definitive prohibition of any GMO on which a full study spanning at least two years (rats) has not been conducted. 6. Labelling proposal Irelevant. Organisation: Conservation Engineering Ltd Country: United Kingdom Type: Individual a. Assessment: 4. Conclusions and recommendations Please keep GM pollen out of the EU. Reject this proposal and application Organisation: Testbiotech Country: Germany Type: Non Profit Organisation a. Assessment: Molecular characterisation The EFSA risk assessment suffers from a lack of data on the actual Bt content in pollen. The original data from Monsanto are around 20 years old. Since then only very few data were made available. Further, the methods for measuring the Bt content were never evaluated for reliability and comparability (Szecaks, et al., 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the French Comimission Du Genie Biomoleculaire
    Submission to the French Comimission du Genie Biomoleculaire Application to Place on the Market Genetically Modified Higher Plants: Insect-Protected Maize (MON 810) by Monsanto Company represented by Monsanto Europe S.A. List of Abbreviations 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid APHIS Animal Plant Health Inspection Service bp, Kb Base pairs, kilobase pairs B. t.h. Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki CaMV Cauliflower mosaic virus CaMVV E35S 35S promoter with enhancer sequence from CaMV CFR U S. Code of federal regulations CP4 EPSPS EPSPS from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 cry JA(b) C"lass I (Lepidoptera-specific) crystal protein gene CTP Chloroplast transit peptide E. coli Escherichica colt ECB European corn borer ELISA Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPSPS 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration GLP Good Laboratory Practices GMO Genetically Modified Organism gox Gene for glyphosate oxidoreductase GOX Glyphosate oxidoreductase hsp70 Intron sequence from maize heat-shock protein 70 IPM Integrated Pest Management kD Kilodaltons N.A. Not analysed N.D. Not detected NOS 3' 3' transcriptional termination sequence from nopaline synthase NPTII Neomycin phosphotransferase II np tll Gene for neomycin phosphotransferase II 0 ri-p UC Bacterial origin of replication from the pUC plasmid PCR Polymerase chain reaction ppm parts per million SSUIA small subunit gene of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase USDA United States Department of Agriculture W/W weight/weight 2 Table of Contents PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Details of notification ................ .. 7 2. Notifier/manufacturer/importer........ ........ 7 3. Characterization of the GMOs contained in the product.....
    [Show full text]
  • Application for Authorization of NK603 × MON 810 Maize for Cultivation in the European Union Under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed
    Application for authorization of NK603 × MON 810 maize for cultivation in the European Union under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed Part II Summary October 2005 Part II - Summary A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Details of application a) Member State of application The Netherlands b) Notification number Not known at the time of application c) Name of the product (commercial and other names) The Monsanto development code for this genetically modified maize is: NK603 × MON 810. NK603 × MON 810 varieties are marketed under the name of the hybrid variety, in association with the trademarks YieldGard ® Corn Borer with Roundup Ready ® Corn 2, indicating clearly to growers that the hybrid is protected from specific lepidopteran insect pests and that it is tolerant to Roundup ® herbicide. d) Date of acknowledgement of notification Not known at the time of application 2. Applicant a) Name of applicant Monsanto Company, represented by Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V. b) Address of applicant Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V. Monsanto Company Avenue de Tervuren 270-272 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard B-1150 Brussels St. Louis, Missouri 63167 BELGIUM U.S.A c) Name and address of the person established in the Community who is responsible for the placing on the market, whether it be the manufacturer, the importer or the distributor, if different from the applicant (Commission Decision 2004/204/EC Art 3(a)(ii)) NK603 × MON 810 maize 1 will be cultivated, traded and used in the European Union in the same manner as current commercial maize and by the same growers and operators currently involved in the planting, trade and use of traditional maize.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008
    Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008 Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain Submitted by MONSANTO EUROPE S.A. Dept. Regulatory Affairs Avenue de Tervuren 270-272 Tervurenlaan 270-272 B-1150 Brussels BELGIUM VOLUME 1 OF 1 July 2009 Data protection. This application contains scientific data and other information which are protected in accordance with Art. 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. © 2009 Monsanto Company. All Rights Reserved. This document is protected under copyright law. This document is for use only by the regulatory authority to which this has been submitted by Monsanto Company, and only in support of actions requested by Monsanto Company. Any other use of this material, without prior written consent of Monsanto Company, is strictly prohibited. By submitting this document, Monsanto Company does not grant any party or entity any right to license, or to use the information of intellectual property described in this document. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2008, Bt maize was planted in the EU on 107,719 hectares across seven countries (James, 2008). As part of stewardship of the technology, industry has implemented an Insect Resistance Management (IRM) plan to proactively avoid and/or delay the potential development of pest resistance to the Cry protein, as well as a voluntary general surveillance monitoring program. The adherence to these stewardship measures in the context of the cultivation of MON 810 maize in Europe is detailed in the Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008. The planting of MON 810 in the 2008 season was accompanied by a rigorous IRM plan involving three main elements: refuge implementation, monitoring and farmer education.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5.3 MON 810 Literature Review – List of All Hits (June 2016
    Appendix 5.3 MON 810 literature review – List of all hits (June 2016-May 2017) -Web of ScienceTM Core Collection database 12/8/2016 Web of Science [v.5.23] ­ Export Transfer Service Web of Science™ Page 1 (Records 1 ­­ 50) [ 1 ] Record 1 of 50 Title: Ground beetle acquisition of Cry1Ab from plant­ and residue­based food webs Author(s): Andow, DA (Andow, D. A.); Zwahlen, C (Zwahlen, C.) Source: BIOLOGICAL CONTROL Volume: 103 Pages: 204­209 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.09.009 Published: DEC 2016 Abstract: Ground beetles are significant predators in agricultural habitats. While many studies have characterized effects of Bt maize on various carabid species, few have examined the potential acquisition of Cry toxins from live plants versus plant residue. In this study, we examined how live Bt maize and Bt maize residue affect acquisition of Cry1Ab in six species. Adult beetles were collected live from fields with either current­year Bt maize, one­year­old Bt maize residue, two­year­old Bt maize residue, or fields without any Bt crops or residue for the past two years, and specimens were analyzed using ELISA. Observed Cry1Ab concentrations in the beetles were similar to that reported in previously published studies. Only one specimen of Cyclotrachelus iowensis acquired Cry1Ab from two­year­old maize residue. Three species acquired Cry1Ab from fields with either live plants or plant residue (Cyclotrachelus iowensis, Poecilus lucublandus, Poecilus chalcites), implying participation in both live­plant and residue­based food webs. Two species acquired toxin from fields with live plants, but not from fields with residue (Bembidion quadrimaculatum, Elaphropus incurvus), suggesting participation only in live plant­based food webs.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. EPA, Pesticide Product Label, MON 863 X MON 810, 10/10/2008
    lv/ro 12-D9~ _, l UNITEO: ATES ENVIRONMENTJ&4;f,,\/ECTION c. _::NCY· i OCT 1 P 2008. Ms. Margaret Wideman Regulatory Affairs Manager Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd St.· Louis, MO 63167 Dear Ms. Wideman: Subject: Your February 15,2008 Amendment Requests to Remove the Expiration Dates for Yie1dGard, Yie1dGard Plus Com, and MON 88017 x -MONB 810 EPA Registration Nos. 524-489, 524-545, and 524-552 The amendments referred to above, .submitted in connection with registration under section 3(c)(7)(A)ofthe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, are acceptable subject to the following comments. 1) For EPA Registration Numbers 524-489,~52*5~r5, and 524-552: ~) The subject plant-incorporated protectant may be combined through conventional breeding with other registered plant-incorporated protectants. that are similarly approved for use in combination, through conventional breeding, with other plant-incorporated protectants to produce inbred com lines and hybrid com varieties with combined pesticidal traits. b) The subject registration will automatically expire on midnight September 30,2010. We are currently unaware of any issues that would preclude a decision to remove the expiration date in the future.. However, due to other statutory priorities, BPPD's review. of the data and information submitted as conditions of registration is ongoing. Therefore, the expiration date is being extended to match that of com rootworm resistant Bt com as an interim measure. c) Refuge requirements do not apply to seed propagation of inbred and hybrid com seed com up to a total of 20,000 acres per county and up to a combined U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2016
    Annual monitoring report on the cultivation of MON 810 in 2016 Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain Submitted by MONSANTO EUROPE S.A. Dept. Regulatory Affairs Avenue de Tervuren 270-272 Tervurenlaan 270-272 B-1150 Brussels BELGIUM September 2017 Data protection. This application contains scientific data and other information which are protected in accordance with Art. 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. © 2017 Monsanto Company. All Rights Reserved. This document is protected under national and international copyright law and treaties. This document and any accompanying material are for use only by the regulatory authority to which it has been submitted by Monsanto Company and its affiliates, collectively “Monsanto Company”, and only in support of actions requested by Monsanto Company. Any other use, copying, or transmission, including internet posting, of this document and the materials described in or accompanying this document, without prior consent of Monsanto Company, is strictly prohibited. The intellectual property, information and materials described in or accompanying this document are owned by Monsanto Company, which has filed for or been granted patents on those materials. By submitting this document and any accompanying materials, Monsanto Company does not grant any party or entity any right or license to the information, material or intellectual property described or contained in this submission. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 164/Wednesday, August 25, 2010
    Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Notices 52329 Those persons who are or, may be Dated: August 17, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: required to conduct testing of chemical Jay S. Ellenberger, Jeannine Kausch, Biopesticides and substances under the Federal Food, Acting Director, Field and External Affairs Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Pesticide Programs, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and [FR Doc. 2010–20842 Filed 8–24–10; 8:45 a.m.] Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). BILLING CODE 6560–50–S Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: B. How Can I Get Copies of this (703) 347–8920; fax number: (703) 305– Document and Other Related ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 0118; e-mail address: Information? AGENCY [email protected]. 1. Docket. EPA has established a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: docket for this action under docket ID [EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0699; FRL–8842–8] number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0001. I. General Information Corn Event MON 863 and MON 863 x Publicly available docket materials are MON 810; Product Cancellation Order A. Does this Action Apply to Me? available either in the electronic docket for Certain Pesticide Registrations at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a available in hard copy, at the Office of AGENCY: Environmental Protection wide range of stakeholders including Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Agency (EPA). environmental, human health, and Public Docket in Rm.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Market Environmental Monitoring Plan for Cultivation of Maize MON 810 in the EU
    Post Market Environmental Monitoring Plan for cultivation of maize MON 810 in the EU Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................................................... 4 3 CASE-SPECIFIC MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 MONITORING FOR RESISTANCE EVOLUTION OF LEPIDOPTERAN TARGET PESTS TO THE CRY1AB PROTEIN 5 3.2.1 Time period ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Monitoring strategy ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2.1 Establishment of baseline to implement the monitoring strategy ................................................................ 5 3.2.2.2 Measurement of changes in susceptibility ................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2.3 Detection limit of resistance allele frequency .............................................................................................. 5 3.2.2.4 Field
    [Show full text]
  • Wto Law and Genetically Modified Products
    135 EAAE Seminar Challenges for the Global Agricultural Trade Regime after Doha WTO LAW AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED PRODUCTS Tatjana Papić Brankov Institute of Agricultural Economics, Belgrade, Serbia [email protected] Koviljko Lovre University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Economics in Subotica, Serbia [email protected] Abstract: The paper discusses the mechanisms by which World Trade Organization (WTO) influence the diffusion of genetically modified (GM) products. We have analyzed the connection between the international trade of GM products and the three WTO Agreements: the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). It can be concluded that the mechanisms of the WTO organization are often used as instruments of threat to nations seeking to ban imports of GM food. In failing to acknowledge and support the precautionary principle, the WTO may have further weakened its authority to make decisions affecting the human health and environment and, in so doing, lessened its legitimacy in the world arena. Keywords: WTO, GM products, TRIPS, SPS, GATS INTRODUCTION Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and foods produced from them- genetically modified (GM) food is highly politicized issues observing the health, economic and environmental aspects. Between 1996 and 2012 the global area planted with GM crops increased by 100 fold, in 2012 covering some 170.3 million hectares (James, 2012). From the very beginning US are major producer of GM crops, with 69.5 million hectares, which produce 95% of the nation's sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 88% of the feed corn1.
    [Show full text]
  • 06 29801P Com.Pdf
    Attachment Finding of no significant impact Response to comments APHIS No. 06-298-01p On December 13, 2007, APHIS published a notice in the Federal Register (72 FR 70817- 70819, Docket no. 2007-0030) announcing the availability of the MON 89034 draft EA for public review and comment for a 60-day comment period, ending February11, 2008. APHIS reviewed the petition to determine if the genetically engineered (GE) corn should continue to be considered a regulated article under the APHIS biotechnology regulations found at 7 CFR Part 340. In order for a GE organism to be considered a regulated article under these regulations, the organism must pose a plant pest risk and be modified by recombinant DNA techniques (genetic engineering under the definition of the regulation). Prior to making a decision on a petition for APHIS to grant nonregulated status for a GE organism, APHIS usually prepares an EA to evaluate the significance of impacts on the environment arising from a decision to grant nonregulated status. APHIS prepares the EA as part of its obligation, like other Federal agencies, to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As part of a petition, APHIS considers public comments on the proposed deregulation as well as the EA that APHIS prepares pursuant to NEPA. APHIS received 29 comments; 24 in opposition and 5 in favor of the deregulation of MON 89034. Of the five supportive comments, 3 were from academia and 2 were from non-profit corn grower associations. Reasons given for supporting deregulation include (but are not limited to) the proven safety of the technology, improved control of corn earworm and fall armyworm relative to single gene events, reduction in mycotoxins, and the reduced possibility of development of resistance afforded by the pyramided genes in this product.
    [Show full text]
  • Diapositiva 1
    Debate científico sobre Transgénicos Academia Nacional de Ciencias Debate científico sobre Transgénicos PROS Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Apr;59(3):437-44. Epub 2011 Feb 5. Proteomic analysis of known and candidate rice allergens between non-transgenic and transgenic plants. Satoh R, Nakamura R, Komatsu A, Oshima M, Teshima R. Division of Novel Foods and Immunochemistry, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18- 1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158-8501, Japan. Salt-soluble proteins extracted from non-transgenic and transgenic rice were evaluated for the presence of known and potential allergens by proteomic techniques. Quantitative analysis of 19, 52, and 63 kDa globulins with protein-specific-animal sera showed no significant differences in the expression of these proteins between the transgenic rice and non- transgenic rice. These results indicate that none of the known or novel endogenous IgE-binding proteins detected in this study appear to be altered by genetic modification Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46 Suppl 1:S2-70. Epub 2008 Feb 13. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials.Collaborators (37) Alink G, Barlow S, Cockburn A, Flachowsky G, Knudsen I, Kuiper H, Massin DP, Pascal G, Peijnenburg A, Phipps R, Pöting A, Poulsen M, Seinen W, Spielmann H, van Loveren H, Wal JM, Williams A, Andersson HC, Arpaia S, Bartsch D, Casacuberta J, Davies H, De Loose M, Hendriksen N, Herman L, Kärenlampi S, Kiss J, Kryspin-Sørensen I, Kuiper H, Nes I, Panopoulos N, Perry J, Pöting A, Schiemann J, Seinen W, Sweet J, Wal JM.
    [Show full text]