Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- 8 Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries: Why Socio-Economic Considerations Matter for Decision-Making
- 9 Food Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: The Experience in Africa
- 10 Being Scientific about Socio-Economics in GMO Decision-Making in Developing Countries
- 11 The Sharing of Information in Risk Assessment: How National Authorities Cooperate
- 12 Should GM Rice with Nutrition Benefits Be Deployed? Findings from Biotech and Socio-Economic Research
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
8 - Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries: Why Socio-Economic Considerations Matter for Decision-Making
from Part II - Diversification of Expertise
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2017
Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- 8 Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries: Why Socio-Economic Considerations Matter for Decision-Making
- 9 Food Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries: The Experience in Africa
- 10 Being Scientific about Socio-Economics in GMO Decision-Making in Developing Countries
- 11 The Sharing of Information in Risk Assessment: How National Authorities Cooperate
- 12 Should GM Rice with Nutrition Benefits Be Deployed? Findings from Biotech and Socio-Economic Research
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
Summary
Inclusion of socio-economic considerations (SEC) in biosafety decision-making remains a contentious issue. After more than a decade there is still no clarity or agreement on the matter. This chapter highlights under what conditions and for what purpose a socio-economic study may be a good idea when considering commercial release of a GM commodity and describes the challenges and limitations. We illustrate with some real life examples of why socio-economic impact assessments may be necessary and important - not as technology or trade barriers but to facilitate responsible adoption and sustainable use. Inclusion of SEC into biosafety decision-making can have positive and negative impacts, partially depending on how inclusion is implemented . In some situations inclusion is a policy decision seeking to address market imperfections and to address a weak institutional and regulatory setting, especially in developing countries. If policy makers make the decision to include SEC, they need to carefully examine the options for potential inclusion. These discussions will require appropriate choices to ensure a functional biosafety system to avoid SEC becoming an insurmountable hurdle in biosafety decision-making
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 91 - 102Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Areal, F. J. et al. (2013). Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Agricultural Science 151(1), 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. C. et al. (2010). Cost of compliance with biotechnology regulation in the Philippines: implications for developing countries. AgBioForum 13(1), 53–62.Google Scholar
Binimelis, R. and Myhr, A. I. (2016). Inclusion and implementation of socio-economic considerations in GMO regulations: needs and recommendations. Sustainability 8(1), 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. B. (2014). Non-adopters of GM crops in Latin America. In Edward Elgar Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development, ed. Smyth, S. J et al. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. B. and Zambrano, P. (2011). Socio-economic considerations in biosafety and biotechnology decision making: the Cartagena Protocol and national biosafety frameworks. Review of Policy Research 28(2), 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. et al. (2012). Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: impact estimation issues from the early adoption of GM maize in Honduras. AgBioForum 15(2), 138–151.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. et al. (2013). The current status of the debate on socio-economic regulatory assessments. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 10(4), 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. B. et al. (2015). In Analyses: Africa's Future…Can Biosciences Contribute?, ed. Mitton, P and Bennett, D. Cambridge: Banson Publishers and Biosciences for Farming in Africa (B4FA).Google Scholar
Gouse, M. (2009). Ten years of Bt cotton in South Africa: putting the smallholder experience into context. In Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton, Rural Institutions and Resource-Poor Farmers, ed. Tripp, R. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gouse, M. (2012). GM maize as subsistence crop: the South African smallholder experience. AgBioForum 15(2), 163–174.Google Scholar
Gouse, M. et al. (2005). Bt cotton in KwaZulu Natal: technological triumph but institutional failure. AgBiotechNet 7(134), 1–7.Google Scholar
Horna, D. et al., eds. (2013). Socioeconomic Considerations in Biosafety Decision Making – Methods and Implementation. [Online]. IFPRI Research Monographs. Available from www.ifpri.org/publication/socioeconomic-considerations-biosafety-decisionmakingGoogle Scholar
Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2011a). A latent class approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in Uganda. Agricultural Economics 42(5), 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2011b). Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda. Appetite 57(2), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2014a). Incremental benefits of genetically modified bananas in Uganda. In Edward Elgar Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development, ed. Smyth, S. J.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kikulwe, E. M. et al. (2014b). If labels for GM food were present, would consumers trust them? Insights from a consumer survey in Uganda. Environment and Development Economics 19(6), 786–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klümper, W. and Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS ONE 9(11), e111629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludlow, K. et al. (2014). Assessing the SEC landscape and moving forward. In Socio-economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation, ed. Ludlow, K et al. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutuc, M. E. et al. (2013). Which farmers benefit the most from Bt corn adoption in the Philippines? Estimating heterogeneity effects. Agricultural Economics 44(2), 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pray, C. E. et al. (2006). Costs and enforcement of biosafety regulations in India and China. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2(1–2), 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smale, M. et al. (2009). Measuring the Economic Impacts of Transgenic Crops in Developing Agriculture during the First Decade: Approaches, Findings, and Future Directions. Food Policy Review 10. [Online]. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available from http://cdml5738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/pl5738coll2/id/26575/filename/26576.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smyth, S. J. et al. (2014). Investment, regulation, and uncertainty: managing new plant breeding techniques. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain 5(1), 44–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yorobe, J. M. and Smale, M. (2012). Impacts of Bt maize on smallholder income in the Philippines. AgBioForum 15(2), 152–162.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by