Dutch regulators have generally made a sharp distinction between scientific-technical and societal-ethical aspects of regulating agri-biotechnology, but many developments have blurred or challenged that distinction. For field releases, risk assessment depended on agro-ecological norms regarding what plausible effects would be unacceptable. In the mid-1990s, stakeholder controversies continued over how to regulate genetically modified (GM) crops, as well as their food and feed use. Since the late 1990s, opposition by public-interest groups has led to new priorities for risk research, and tighter criteria for evidence. Involvement of non-governmental organisations, whether or not actively sought or appreciated by Dutch regulators, contributed to analytical rigour in risk assessment. Public debate also resulted in proposals for an integral societal-ethical evaluation framework (ISEEF) for biotechnology products, and market demands for the co-existence of GM, conventional and organic crops.