Global GMO Policy

2009

I. Prologue A. Serious flaws in the global food system. B. Possible causes for the flaws in the global food system. C. Views on biotechnology D. Controversies surrounding GM food and crops. II. Introduction A. Biotechnology advocates and their general perspective. a. Medical biotechnology, industrial biotechnology, and agricultural biotechnology. B. Opponents of biotechnology and their general perspective C. Response to opposing viewpoints and the different approaches to the conflict in regards to trade. D. Intro to WTO ruling in the EU Moratorium and the challenges for developing countries. III. Abstract A. When it comes to GM food the US and the EU are on opposite sides of the spectrum. B. Whether developing nations decide to side with the US or the EU will have significant affects on their stability. IV. What is Biotechnology? A. GMO and LMO defined V. A Brief History A. The evolution of GMOs is rooted in history. a. Gregor Mendel-his science is now viewed as conventional breeding B. The rate of mutation is slow, and nuclear mutation was readily available after WWII. C. Problems with conventional breeding that led to biotechnology. D. Biotechnology-available after the discovery of the DNA double helix that allows you to pick and choose the genes of your choice. VI. Statistics of GMO use around the world A. self-explanatory VII. The science behind genetic engineering A. A modern genetic modification involves DNA extraction, gene cloning, gene design, transformation, and backcross breeding. B. Two main biotechnology traits are herbicide tolerance and pesticide resistance. C. Commodity crops and Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) VIII. GM Food and Trade Agreements A. Protocols for GMOs a. Codex Alimentarius Commission-developing principles for the human health risk analysis of GM foods. b. Codex does not have a binding affect on national legislation and it is mentioned in the WTO SPS Agreement. B. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety-regulates transboundary moments of LMOs if they are able to replicate (that could potentially be released to the environment). C. TRIPS Agreement D. What WTO agreements try to do-reduce the potential for conflict. IX. The European Union's rejection of GMOs A. Before the late 1980s, the public was not well informed on GM research B. The new products, particularly in Europe had no direct benefit to consumers. C. Europe's mistrust in the safety of food supplies rooted in history. D. The EU farmers/ EU population and the reasons behind their choices. X. What's behind GM food trade disputes? A. The EU Moratorium explained. B. The effects of the EU Moratorium in GM adopting countries and non-adopting countries. XI. The EU Moratorium and developing countries. A. Interview with Lee Ann Jackson (WTO) a. What direction are developing countries headed. B. Three scenarios in which the EU takes three different positions and the possible results. a. Moratorium b. Informed choices through labeling c. if it were to allow GM adoption XII. What impact do the results of the EU moratorium have on household incomes? A. Who is better off and who is worst off in terms of countries. B. Statistical results show that the EU Moratorium benefited developing countries in terms of trade. a. However, they are at loss for nutritional enhancement. b. Believed that in the long term, GM adoption is beneficial. XIII. The Issue with developing countries A. Developing countries are in the middle of the debate between the acceptance and rejection of GMOs B. Developing countries do not use GM fortified seeds as intensely and they have to deal with additional government regulations.

2014

International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology …, 2002

MaRBLe

2007

GMO contamination around the world, 2001

The EU regulatory framework on GMOs has always been featured by a high degree of har-monisation and centralisation, resulting in a loss in its States' regulatory power. However, the EU harmonisation process has gone through several controversies over the years; as a consequence, the EU institutions have increasingly striven to support the pressing requests of Member States with a view towards granting the latter greater room to manoeuvre and decide as regards GMOs cultivation, starting from coexistence concerns. This article briefly analyses the changes recently introduced by means of Directive 2015/412/EU as regards the cultivation of GMOs, from the point of view of the evolution of the EU regulatory framework and national attitudes towards the risks and benefits linked to biotechnology derived products and their production. According to the new Directive 2015/412, amending Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs, Member States are entitled to enact measures restricting or banning the cultivation of GM crops on their territory complying with several so called " compelling grounds ". In the light of the diverse nature of such reasons, and considering the hostility expressed by Member States towards GMOs over the years, some doubts arise as to whether the exercise of the new regulatory powers by Member States will comply with the 'EU acquis'. What is certain is that today, after more than a decade since the big reform of 2001-2003, the EU GMO regime is still one of the much-contested policy sectors in the EU.

Unless we examine why GM crops have not been universally ac- cepted as a public good, we will fail to understand the conditions under which ‘GM crops can help to feed the world’. The rise of genetically modified (GM) crops has been dramatic, but their uptake has not been the smooth nor universal transition predicted by its advocates. Controversy is present even in countries, such as the US, where approvals have been impressively rapid. All too commonly the regulation of GM crops has been challenged as inadequate, even biased. While public and regulatory debates about GM crops have been grid-locked in many parts of the world including the UK and EU, there are lessons to be learned from the global ‘rising powers’ who have experienced similar chal- lenges in governing GM, within their own cultural contexts. This research, undertaken by Durham University, in partnership with local research teams in Mexico, Brazil and India, and funded by The John Templeton Foundation under the banner ‘Can GM crops help to feed the world?’, reveals a diverse variety of factors that influence decisions surrounding the adoption of GM technologies, many of them cross-cultural and of global significance.

Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 2001