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
- 2 Recent Scientific Developments in Genetic Technologies: Implications for Future Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 3 A Strategy for Integrating Science into Regulatory Decision-Making for GMOs
- 4 Governance of Benefits and Risks of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 5 The Canadian Experience with the Creation and Implementation of Regulatory Frameworks for the Environmental Release of GM Crops as a Model for Developing Countries
- 6 Labelling of Food from GMOs: Options to Consider by Developing Countries
- 7 Building Human Capacity and Skills in Biosafety: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
4 - Governance of Benefits and Risks of GMOs in Developing Countries
from Part I - Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
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
- 2 Recent Scientific Developments in Genetic Technologies: Implications for Future Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 3 A Strategy for Integrating Science into Regulatory Decision-Making for GMOs
- 4 Governance of Benefits and Risks of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 5 The Canadian Experience with the Creation and Implementation of Regulatory Frameworks for the Environmental Release of GM Crops as a Model for Developing Countries
- 6 Labelling of Food from GMOs: Options to Consider by Developing Countries
- 7 Building Human Capacity and Skills in Biosafety: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
Summary
Starting from an examination of the risk based focus of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, this chapter examines the extent to which a focus on risk and a neglect of consideration of benefits has led to the current regulatory impasse blocking the introduction of GMOs in many developing countries. The potential benefits for developing countries include environmental, agricultural, health and socio-economic aspects. A survey of the GMO-related legislation in 38 developing countries revealed that few of them made explicit provision for consideration of risks. The European position specifically excludes consideration of benefits, and this is likely to affect attitudes in developing countries. There is a need to develop a structured approach to risk-benefit analysis, and for there to be more emphasis on communication of benefits, particularly since the next generation of nutritionally enhanced crops should bring real benefits to the consumer
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 39 - 52Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Arvidsson, G. (2015). Food security now or wait for research to assess risks? Genetically modified crops and smallholder farmers in Africa. Nordiska Afrikainstitutet Policy Note 3.Google Scholar
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. (2016). GM Crops: Global Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts 1996–2014. Dorchester: PG Economics Ltd.Google Scholar
Burachik, M. (2010). Experience from use of GMOs in Argentinian agriculture, economy and environment. New Biotechnology 27(5), 588–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CAC (2007). Working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application by governments. CAC/GL 62–2007.Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. [Online]. Available from www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2012). Guidance on risk assessment of living modified organisms. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/6/13/Add.1. [Online]. Available from www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/mop-06/official/mop-06-13-add1-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2015). Guidance on risk assessment of living modified organisms and monitoring in the context of risk assessment. UNEP/CBD/BS/RARM/AHTEG/2015/1/4. [Online]. Available from www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/bsrarm-ahteg-2015-01/official/bsrarm-ahteg-2015-01-04-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (2006). Guidance document of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA Journal 99, 1–100.Google Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. et al. (2013). The current status of the debate on socio-economic regulatory assessments: positions and policies in Canada, the USA, the EU and developing countries. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 10(4), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO/WHO (1998). The application of risk communication to food standards and safety matters. [Online]. Available from www.fao.org/docrep/005/x1271e/X1271E01.htmGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. et al. (2015). Social impacts of GM crops in agriculture: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 7(7), 8598–8620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FoodRisC (2015). Website of the project ‘Perceptions and communication of food risk/benefits across Europe’. [Online]. Available from www.foodrisc.orgGoogle Scholar
Frewer, L. J. et al. (1998). Consumer acceptance of transgenic crops. Pesticide Science 52, 388–393.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, R. A. et al. (2013). Bringing policy relevance and scientific discipline to environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops. Trends in Biotechnology 31(9), 493–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IRRI (undated). What is the status of the Golden Rice project coordinated by IRRI? [Online]. Available from http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irriGoogle Scholar
Kamanga, G. D. et al. (2014). Why communication and issues management (CIMS) must occupy a central role in GM projects: case study of the Africa Biofortified Sorghum (ABS) Project. In Biotechnology in Africa: Emergence, Initiatives and Future, ed. Wambugu, F. and Kamanga, D.. Basel: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, K. et al. (2013). Socio-economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation. Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
Marcoux, J.-M. et al. (2013). The inclusion of nonsafety criteria within the regulatory framework of agricultural biotechnology: exploring factors that are likely to influence policy transfer. Review of Policy Research 36(6), 657–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitre, M. and Reis, B. P. W. (2015). Science and politics in the regulation of genetically modified organisms in Brazil. Review of Policy Research 31(2), 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, E. J. (1995). Biosafety regulations in South Africa. African Crop Science Journal 3(3), 303–307.Google Scholar
Morris, E. J. (2011). A semi-quantitative approach to GMO risk–benefit analysis. Transgenic Research 20(5), 1055–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, E. J. and Thomson, J. A. (2014). Genetically modified crops commercialized in South Africa. In Biotechnology in Africa: Emergence, Initiatives and Future, ed. Wambugu, F. and Kamanga, D.. Basel: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Racovita, M. et al. (2013). Experiences in sub-Saharan Africa with GM crop risk communication. GM Crops & Food 4(1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramatha, L. and Andrew, J. (2012). Socio-economic aspects in decision-making in the context of the Biosafety Protocol: Malaysia's experience and case studies. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 14(3), 19–30.Google Scholar
Sayre, R. et al. (2011). The BioCassava Plus program: biofortification of cassava for sub-Saharan Africa. Annual Reviews of Plant Biology 62, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegrist, M. et al. (2016). Biased perception about gene technology: how perceived naturalness and affect distort benefit perception. Appetite 96, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stein, A. J. et al. (2008). Genetic engineering for the poor: golden rice and public health in India. World Development 36(1), 144–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Montpellier Panel (2013). Sustainable Intensification: A New Paradigm for African Agriculture, London.Google Scholar
USDA (2015). Malaysia Agricultural Biotechnology Annual 2015. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report Number MY5011. [Online]. Available from http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Kuala%20Lumpur_Malaysia_7-10-2015.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vigani, M. and Olper, A. (2013). GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy 43, 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigani, M. and Olper, A. (2015). Patterns and determinants of GMO regulations: an overview of recent evidence. AgBioForum 18(1), 44–54.Google Scholar
Wesseler, J. and Zilberman, D. (2014). The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition. Environment and Development Economics 19(6), 724–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolt, J. D. et al. (2016). The regulatory status of genome-edited crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal 14(2), 510–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by