Trade Of Genetically Modified Organisms Research Articles

Approaches to Set Rules for Trade in the Products of Agricultural Biotechnology. Is Harmonization under Trans-Pacific Partnership Possible?

Abstract Given the absence of progress toward a multilateral agreement on trade liberalization in the WTO’s Doha Round, countries are attempting to gain the perceived gains from trade through the negotiation of preferential trade agreements. One of the most ambitious attempts to negotiate a preferential agreement is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which encompasses 12 countries across the Pacific including both the US and Japan. The TPP members account for approximately 40 % of global GDP. One of the most difficult issues in current international trade policy is the regulation of trade in the products of modern agricultural biotechnology. This question was on the negotiating agenda of the TPP. The objective of this paper is to lay out the major issues in the trade of products of modern agricultural biotechnology and examines the regulatory regimes for biotechnology in the 12 TPP countries. It finds that there is a significant divergence in the approaches to regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) across the TPP countries. As a result, the development of a harmonized regulatory regime to govern trade in GMOs was impossible directly in the TPP. A forum where the development of a harmonized system could potentially be undertaken was, however, agreed in the TPP.

Rapid detection of genetic modification for GMO monitoring in agriculture

Transgenic technology has expanded the ways of new genetic variability creation. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms which total genome is altered in a way that could not happen in nature. GM crops recorded a steady increase in its share in agricultural production. However, for the most part, GMO in agriculture has been limited to two cultivars - soy and corn, and the two genetic modifications, the total herbicide resistance and pest of the Lepidoptera genus. In order to monitor cultivation and trade of GMOs, tests of different precision are used, qualitatively and/or quantitatively determining the presence of genetic modification. Tests for the rapid determination of the presence of GM are suitable, since they can be implemented quickly and accurately, in terms of declared sensitivity, outside or in the laboratory. The example of the use of rapid tests demonstrates their value in use for rapid and efficient monitoring.

The Applicability of International Human Rights Law to the Regulation of International Trade of Genetically Modified Organisms: A New Haven Perspective

This article reviews the applicability of international human rights law to the regulation of international trade of genetically modified organisms (GMO) that may have adverse effects on human life and health. Rights to life and health are recognised by many international agreements as fundamental human rights. This article argues, from the perspective of the New Haven school of jurisprudence, that since the principle of human dignity as a legal source of fundamental human rights is a basic norm justifying all legal regulations and institutions, it must, in case of conflicts with provisions under the GATT/WTO Agreements, have priority over rules for free trade and investment liberalisation. In light of the rights to life and health being core human rights having the status of international custom or jus cogens, the author proposes several policy and legal requirements to ensure human dignity, as applied to regulations of international trade of GMO.

Public Participation in Environmental Matters and Trade in GMO's

The international and national environmental law have attempted to react the challenges posed by the developing biotech industries in the last decades, and several efforts have been made in order to improve the transparency and to give opportunity to the public to get involved in all relevant stages of the decision-making procedures on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). One of the striking examples could be the Aarhus Convention, which itself does not contain large set of rules regarding the GMOs, but Almaty Amendment, still under ratification, will result essential changes in this regard. Consequently the following paper aims at analyzing whether the framework of the Aarhus Convention is eligible to give a tool to the growing public awareness regarding the trade in GMOs and to show how can the general and specific provisions of the Convention be applied in that field.

Legalising General Prohibitions on Cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms

In a pluralistic society, agreement over complex issues is frequently difficult to achieve. This is amply demonstrated by the question of cultivation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), where scientific uncertainty relating to potential threats to the environment or human health runs parallel with concerns over ethics, freedom of choice, and competing agricultural and economic interests. Conflict centres over the objective of free trade of GMOs and the circumstances in which restrictions may legitimately be imposed to deal with the abovementioned concerns, in particular regarding cultivation.

Transparency as Contested Political Terrain: Who Knows What about the Global GMO Trade and Why does it Matter?

This article explores the prospects for transparency to be a transformative force in global biosafety governance. It analyzes whether information disclosure can further a right to know and choose, and hence facilitate oversight over transnational transfers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It examines the question of “Whose right to know what and why?” with regard to GMOs in the agricultural commodity trade in relation to the global Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. I argue that the limited disclosure obligations in this global context follow rather than shape market developments, and that complex infrastructures of sampling, testing and detection are required to put disclosed information to use. If so, rather than a normative right-to-know of importing countries, a competing norm of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) prevails. I conclude that the potential of transparency to empower remains unrealized, particularly for the poorest countries most reliant on globally-induced disclosure.

Transparency to What End? Governing by Disclosure through the Biosafety Clearing House

Although transparency is a key concept in the social sciences, it remains an understudied phenomenon in global environmental governance. This paper analyzes effectiveness of ‘governance by transparency’ or governance by information disclosure as a key innovation in global environmental and risk governance. Information disclosure is central to current efforts to govern biosafety or safe trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Through analyzing the dynamics of GMO-related information disclosure to the global Biosafety Clearing House (BCH), I argue that the originally intended normative and procedural aims of disclosure in this case—to facilitate a GMO-importing country's right to know and right to choose prior to trade in GMOs—are not yet being realized, partly because the burden of BCH disclosure currently rests, ironically, on importing countries. As a result, BCH disclosure may even have market-facilitating rather than originally intended market-regulating effects with regard to GMO trade, turning on its head the intended aims of governance by disclosure.

Reconciling the Bio Safety Protocol and the WTO Regime: Problems, Perspectives and Possibilities

Problem statement: The issue of regulation of international trade in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) evokes a very unique, passionate and emotional debate between environmentalists and businesses. At the conceptual level itself, like most other multilateral environmental agreements, the Cartagena Protocol appears to be incompatible with the WTO Rules. Approach: Further, since there is precious little scientific certainty on the actual and potential impact of GMOs on environment and human health, and because the debate spans cultural and philosophical contours, domestic regulation of GMOs vary substantially. The most vocal among such divergences has been the trans-atlantic rift between the US and the European Community regarding the application and interpretation of the precautionary principle. All these negatively hamper international trade and fragment international market, thereby decreasing economies of scale, which in turn is a huge setback to the massive research and development costs involved in the production of GMOs. It is a particularly challenging scenario for developing countries, as it directly affects their exports, even of organic products. Results: The authors strongly believe that the benefits of bio-technology shall not be wholly abandoned without proper scientific evidence; because the evolution of an environmentally safe and risk-free GM product has the potential to become the panacea for global food shortage and inequity. Conclusion/Recommendations: The study will first examine the apparent conflict and tension between the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO regime. Secondly, the language of the savings clause in the Cartagena Protocol would be analyzed, to emphasize that the Protocol was envisaged to be in force with equal primacy to the WTO regime and that WTO rules can be harmoniously interpreted with the Protocol, in a manner that is beneficial to both. Next, it would be elaborated on how the Cartagena Protocol in effect supports and strengthens the existing WTO regime by better defining the precautionary principle. Therefore, through this study, we seek to suggest a possible way forward to sustainable development-by arguing that the Cartagena Protocol and WTO regime are capable of a mutually beneficial existence. In the years to come, such a harmonious interpretation would definitely become crucial for stabilizing and strengthening the international regime governing trade in GMOs.

International Trade in GMOs and GM Products: National and Multilateral Legal Frameworks

This publication, one of a series of UNCTAD studies which discuss key international trade and development policy issues, focuses on the trade implications of the application of biotechnology techniques in agriculture and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products derived from them. Topics considered include: domestic legislation on agro-biotechnology in selected developed and developing countries; the multilateral legal framework, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; actual and potential GM-related trade disputes.

Strategic Labeling and Trade of GMOs

The emergence of agricultural biotechnology and the subsequent introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the food system have been among the most controversial issues surrounding the increasingly scrutinized agri-food system. They have received considerable attention in the economics literature with the main focus being on the optimal regulatory response to products of biotechnology. This paper builds on the literature on the regulation of products of biotechnology by placing the analysis of labeling decisions in a multi-country context. Specifically, the objective of this study is to examine the effect of the strategic interdependence between countries on their regulatory responses to products of biotechnology. The paper analyzes the strategic effects of national regulatory decisions on labeling of GM products and identifies the determinants of the non-cooperative Nash equilibrium labeling regimes in a small number of producing countries that supply the world market of an agricultural product. Analytical results show that the Nash equilibrium configuration of labeling regimes in countries that have adopted the GM technology depends on (i) the distribution of consumer preferences and the level of consumer aversion to GM products; (ii) the size of the segregation and labeling costs in these countries; (iii) the relative productive efficiency and the cost effectiveness of the GM technology; (iv) the market power of the life science companies; and (v) the strength of intellectual property rights in these countries.

Is it Better to be Safe than Sorry? The Cartagena Protocol versus the World Trade Organisation

One of the most important developments of the twenty-first century has been the emergence of biotechnology and genetic engineering. In response to this development, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was negotiated, and entered into force in September 2003. The Cartagena Protocol sets up a regime governing the international movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that aims to protect biodiversity from any adverse effects of genetically modified organisms. However, the Cartagena Protocol is not the only regime governing such movement. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) also covers the trade in GMOs, but has a different aim: to prevent limitations on such movement. As a result it is almost inevitable that a dispute concerning the trade in GMOs will occur. Therefore, harmonisation of the two agreements is highly desirable. One way to achieve this, which would then avoid the need for WTO reform, would be for the Cartagena Protocol to be used by the WTO as evidence of internationally accepted standards in relation to GMOs. However, given that the WTO would be unlikely to accept such a proposal, other solutions need to be explored.

GMOs and Trade: Issues at Stake in the EC Biotech Dispute

Review of European Community & International Environmental LawVolume 13, Issue 3 p. 289-305 GMOs and Trade: Issues at Stake in the EC Biotech Dispute Laurence Boisson De Chazournes, Laurence Boisson De ChazournesSearch for more papers by this authorMakane Moïse Mbengue, Makane Moïse MbengueSearch for more papers by this author Laurence Boisson De Chazournes, Laurence Boisson De ChazournesSearch for more papers by this authorMakane Moïse Mbengue, Makane Moïse MbengueSearch for more papers by this author First published: 26 November 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2004.00410.xCitations: 4Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume13, Issue3November 2004Pages 289-305 RelatedInformation

THE BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL AND ITS SOCIO‐ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SEEDS OF DISCORD

Given that there is a certain level of environmental uncertainty associated with the products of biotechnology (BT) in addition to the possibilities of negative impacts arising from trans‐boundary movements of genetically modified organisms (GMO), the urgency for an international agreement to regulate trade in GMOs was recognized. The Biosafety Protocol is such an international environmental agreement. This protocol is charged with designing a comprehensive international regulatory approach to the protection of biodiversity and to establish rules to manage the environmental risks of trans‐boundary movements of GMOs. Corresponding author. Email: Frank G. Muller@Sympatico.ca The Protocol has major implications both for the technology addressed in the Protocol and for international trade. It is the first major international agreement to use the “precautionary principle” explicitly to allow the restriction of trade in products because they were produced using a specific technology, namely BT. This paper intends to provide a critical socio‐economic assessment of the central issues addressed in the Protocol with regards to agrobiotechnology and biodiversity.

El Protocolo de Bioseguridad y sus consecuencias socioeconómicas

Biotechnology (BT) is a major source of numerous socio-economic and ecological changes and consequences as we are entering the 21st century. The public is almost daily confronted with conflicting stories that encompass the entire spectrum from BT being proclaimed as humankind's saviour to it being the cause of our ultimate environmental destruction. Governments have difficulties designing appropriate policies to regulate all aspects of BT from research protocols, to testing, to protection for intellectual property, to licensing for release into the environment, for food safety and for international trade.Given that there is a certain level of environmental uncertainty associated withthe products of BT in addition to the possibilities of negative impacts arising from trans-boundary movements of genetically modified organisms (GMO), the urgency for an international agreement to regulate trade in GMOs was recognized. The Biosafety Protocol is such an international environmental agreement that is charged with devising a comprehensive international regulatory approach to the protection of biodiversity and to establish rules to manage the environmental risks of trans-boundary movements of GMOs.The Protocol has major implications both for the technology addressed in the Protocol and for international trade. lt is the first major international agreementto use the "precautionary principie" explicitly to allow the restriction of trade in products because they were produced using a specific technology, namely BT. This paper intends to provide a critica! socio-economic assessment of the central issues addressed in the Protocol in regards to agro biotechnology and biodiversity.

Global trade in GM food and the cartagena protocol on biosafety: Consequences for china

The UN Cartagena Protocol onBiosafety adopted in Montreal, 29 January, 2000and opened for signature in Nairobi, 15–26 May,2000 will exert a profound effect oninternational trade in genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) and their products. In thispaper, the potential effects of variousarticles of the Protocol on international tradein GMOs are analyzed. Based on the presentstatus of imports of GMOs and domestic researchand development of biotechnology in China,likely trends in imports of foreign GM food andrelated products after China accedes to WTO isexplored. Also, China's potentialcountermeasures to control and regulate importsof GMOs in line with implementation of theProtocol are discussed. China, in recent times,has increased its food and agricultural importssubstantially from USA and Canada. Chinaimported soybean 10.42 mill. tons in 2000 andabout 15 mill tons in 2001, of which majorityare from USA where GM soybean accounts for60%. The plantation of US Monsanto'stransgenic Bt cotton was increased to more than1 million ha in China in 2001. Though China haspaid great attention to develop biotechnology,it appears to have little scope to export GMOsand GM products. So China may consider a rangeof administrative measures to implement theCartagena Protocol and to regulate its importof GMOs and GM agricultural products.Consequently, the Regulation on Safety ofAgri-GMOs was issued on June, 2001 and followedthree detailed rules issued in Jan. of 2002,with a priority to limit foreign GMOs importingby safety certification and labeling system.These were outlined taking into accountpolicies adopted in Western countries such asgreen barriers to international trade.