The State of Science-Based Regulation and Genetically Modified Crops

  • Stuart J. Smyth
  • José Falck-Zepeda
  • Karinne Ludlow
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 37)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the relationship between risk and innovation. This is done by first, providing the background to the establishment and then the evolution of the risk analysis framework and second, by discussing the international governance capacity of risk and biotechnology. The highlights the gaps in the international regulatory structure for products of biotechnology. Following this, the chapter provides a detailed assessment of the North American regulatory framework for genetically modified crops. This portion of the chapter identifies the government departments and agencies that are involved in the regulation framework and the Acts that govern their oversight role. The chapter concludes that science-based regulatory systems provide a consistent and transparent process for managing the commercialization of innovative crop research.

Keywords

Sugar Toxicity Corn Europe Transportation 

References

  1. BASF (2012) News release: BASF to concentrate plant biotechnology activities on main markets in North and South America. http://www.basf.com/group/pressrelease/P-12-109. Accessed 10 June 2013
  2. Buckingham D, Phillips PWB (2001) Hot potato, hot potato: regulating products of biotechnology by the international community. J World Trade 35(1):1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2011a) Directive 94-08: assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir9408e.shtml. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  4. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2011b) Regulation of agricultural biotechnology in Canada: an educator’s resource. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/gen/educ_postsece.shtml. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  5. Canadian Lung Association (2004) Resurgence: is TB a problem in Canada today? http://www.lung.ca/tb/tbtoday/resurgence. Accessed 10 June 2013
  6. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2012) Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnologyGoogle Scholar
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization (2012) FAO/WHO Codex training package: section four—scientific basis for Codex work. 4.1 Risk analysis in the framework of Codex. ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/capacity_building/4_1.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2013Google Scholar
  8. Food and Drug Administration (1997) Guidance on consultation procedures; foods derived from new plant varieties. http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/consulpr.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  9. Isaac GE (2002) Agricultural biotechnology and transatlantic trade: regulatory barriers to GM crops. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Health Canada (2011a) Genetically modified (GM) foods and other novel foods. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/index_e.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  11. Health Canada (2011b) Environmental impact initiative. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/contaminants/person/impact/about-impact/index_e.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  12. Health Canada (2011c) Guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/legislation/guide-ld/nf-an/guidelines-lignesdirectrices_e.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  13. Jackson LA, Jansen M (2010) Risk assessment in the international food safety policy arena. Can the multilateral institutions encourage unbiased outcomes? Food Policy 35:538–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. James C (2011) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief 43. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp. Accessed 10 June 2013
  15. Kinsella KG (1992) Changes in life expectancy 1900–1990. Am J Clin Nutr 55:1196–1202Google Scholar
  16. Lammerding AM, Paoli GM (1998) Quantitative risk assessment: an emerging tool for emerging food borne pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis 3(4):483–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McHughen A, Smyth S (2008) US regulatory system for genetically modified (GMO, rDNA or transgenic) crop cultivars. Plant Biotechnol J 6(1):2–12Google Scholar
  18. National Academy of Sciences (2000) Genetically modified pest protected plants: science and regulation. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. National Academy of Sciences (2004) Biological confinement of genetically engineered organisms. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Office of Science and Technology Policy (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology: announcement of policy and notice for public comment. Fed Regist 51(123):23302–23350Google Scholar
  22. Phillips PWB, Smyth SJ, Kerr WA (eds) (2006) Governing risk in the 21st century: lessons from the world of biotechnology. Nova Science Publishers, HauppaugeGoogle Scholar
  23. Powell D (2000) Risk based regulatory responses in global food trade: a case study of Guatemalan raspberry imports into the United States and Canada, 1996–1998. In: Doern GB, Reed T (eds) Risky business: Canada’s changing science-based policy and regulatory regime. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandman PM (1994) Mass media and environmental risk: seven principles. Risk Health Saf Environ 5(3):1–7Google Scholar
  25. Smyth S, McHughen A (2008) Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol J 6(3):213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smyth S, Phillips PWB, Kerr WA (2009) Global governance quandaries regarding transformative technologies for bioproducts, crops, and foods. J World Trade 43(6):1299–1323Google Scholar
  27. Smyth SJ, Kerr WA, Phillips PWB (2011) Recent trends in the scientific basis of sanitary and phytosanitary trade rules and their potential impact on investment. J World Invest Trade 12(1):5–26Google Scholar
  28. World Health Organization (2012) Global tuberculosis report 2012. www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/gtbr12_main.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2013

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart J. Smyth
    • 1
  • José Falck-Zepeda
    • 2
  • Karinne Ludlow
    • 3
  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.International Food Policy Research InstituteWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations