Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation pp 37–52Cite as

International Context of Socioeconomic Considerations and the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((NRMP,volume 37))

Abstract

Many countries have made significant investment in developing broad agricultural biotechnology capacity focused on developing plant and animal breeding, advanced genomics, tissue culture, and genetic transformations (Falck-Zepeda et al. 2009). Developing countries have been particularly interested in supporting their resource poor smallholder farmers while addressing multiple productivity challenges and cultural diversity and operating in agricultural and natural ecosystems which may be mega biodiverse. These challenges are made more difficult to overcome because developing countries also face significant institutional and policy challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kikulwe et al. (2010, 2011) reminds us there may be significant heterogeneity among different groups and agents in society in their positions toward GM crops. These differences may shape perceptions and influence policy and thus understanding each group of countries and agents is warranted.

  2. 2.

    A paper by Takeshima and Gruere (2010) suggests that anti-GMO lobbying efforts may be more successful in those countries where conditions may not be favorable for the introduction of a GMO in the first place. This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by results obtained in the analysis conducted in the paper. We posit that this hypothesis may also apply to the particular case of policy debate spaces, yet this remains an unexplored research area.

References

  • Aslaksen J, Glomsrød S, Myhr AI (2013) Post–normal science and ecological economics: strategies for precautionary approaches and sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev 16(1–2):107–126. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2013.053793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atanassov A, Bahieldin A, Brink J et al (2004) To reach the poor. Results from the ISNAR-IFPRI Next Harvest Study on Genetically Modified Crops, Public Research, and Policy Implications, EPTD Discussion Paper 116. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger H, Ruttan VW (1978) Induced innovation: technology, institutions and development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane WW (1958) Farm prices: myth and reality. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • CONCACYT (2007) ‘Acuerdo por el que se expiden las Reglas de Operación de la Comisión Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Genéticamente Modificados’. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, December 5 2007. http://www.cibiogem.gob.mx/Docum_interes/Reglas_Op_05dic07.pdf

  • de Janvry A (1981) The agrarian question and reformism in Latin America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • DFID (2009) Political economy analysis—how to note: A DFID Practice Paper, Department for International Development, London, UK. http://www.odi.org.uk/events/2009/07/23/1929-dfid-note-political-economy-analysis.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2013

  • Duncan A, Williams G (2010) Making development assistance more effective by using political economy analysis: what has been done and what have we learned? The Policy Practice, Brighton. http://www.thepolicypractice.com/papers/16.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2013

  • Eckaus RS (1955) The factor proportions problem in underdeveloped areas. Am Econ Rev 45(4):539–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Falck-Zepeda JB, Falconi C, Sampaio-Amstalden MJ et al (2009) La biotecnología agropecuaria en América Latina: Una visión cuantitativa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 860SP, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00860sp.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2013

  • Feder G (1985) The relation between farm size and farm productivity: the role of family labor, supervision and credit constraints. J Dev Econ 18(2–3):85–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Dev Cult Change 33(2):255–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1991) A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: Costanza R (ed) Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner BL (2002) American agriculture in the twentieth century: how it flourished and what it cost. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • GEUM (2005) ‘Ley de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Genéticamente Mejorados’. Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, March 18 2005. http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/Ley_BOGM.pdf

  • GEUM (2008) ‘Reglamento de la Ley de Bioseguridad de los Organismos Genéticamente Mejorados.’ Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, March 19 2008. http://www.cibiogem.gob.mx/Norm_Leyes/Reglamento_LBOGM.pdf

  • GoB (2005) ‘Decree 5.591/2005, which regulates Law 11.105/2005.’ Government of Brazil. November 2005. http://bch.biodiv.org/database/attachedfile.aspx?id=600

  • GoI (1986) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. http://dbtbiosafety.nic.in/. Accessed 10 May 2013

  • GoI (1989) Rules for the manufacture, use, import, export an storage of hazardous microorganisms, genetically engineered organisms or cells. Notification No. 621 Official Gazette of Government of India, December 5, 1989. http://dbtbiosafety.nic.in/. Accessed 10 May 2013

  • Griliches Z (1957) Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of technological change. Econometrica 25(4):501–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A (1999) Framing biosafety in an international context. ENRP Discussion Paper E-99-10, Kenneday School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayami Y, Ruttan V (1985) Agricultural development: an international perspective. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins B (1956) The dualistic theory of underdeveloped areas. Econ Dev Cult Change 4(2):99–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac GE (2002) Agricultural biotechnology and transatlantic trade: regulatory barriers to GM crops. CABI Publishing Inc, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac GE (2004) The interaction between levels of rule making in international trade and investment: the case of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Discussion Paper Prepared for the Workshop on the Interaction Between Levels of Rule Making in International Trade and Investment UNU CRIS/LSE ITPU Project, Brussels, Belgium, December

    Google Scholar 

  • James C (2012) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief No. 44. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastenhofer K (2010) Risk assessment of emerging technologies and post-normal science. Sci Technol Hum Values (May 2011) 36: 307–333. (First published on November 7, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kikulwe EM, Birol E, Wesseler J et al (2010) A latent class approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in uganda. Agr Econ 42(5):547–560. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00529.x. Accessed 6 June 2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kikulwe EM, Wesseler J, Falck-Zepeda J (2011) Attitudes, perceptions, and trust: insights from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in uganda. Appetite 57(2):401–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis WA (1954) Economic development with unlimited supplies of labor. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas RE (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J Monet Econ 22:2–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MoA PRC (2002a) ‘Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms Decree 8’. Ministry of Agriculture, PR China January 5 2002. http://bch.biodiv.org/database/attachedfile.aspx?id=559

  • MoA PRC (2002b) ‘Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms Decree 9’. Ministry of Agriculture, PR China, January 5 2002. http://bch.biodiv.org/database/attachedfile.aspx?id=561

  • MoA PRC (2002c) ‘Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms Decree 10’. Ministry of Agriculture, PR China, January 5 2002. http://bch.biodiv.org/database/attachedfile.aspx?id=563

  • Myhr AI (2010) The challenge of scientific uncertainty and disunity in risk assessment and management of GM crops. Environ Values 19(1):7–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myrdal KG (1968) Asian drama: an inquiry into the poverty of nations. Pantheon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature (2009) Cuba’s biotech boom: Editorial. Nature 457(7226):130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature Biotechnology (2012) Agnostic about agriculture: Editorial. Nat Biotechnol 30(3):197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board (2009) Sustainability, benefit to the community and ethics in the assessment of genetically modified organisms: implementation of the concepts set out in sections 1 and 10 of the Norwegian gene technology act, 2nd revised edn. The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Group, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Prebisch R (1950) The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhinard M, Kaeding M (2006) The international bargaining power of the European Union in mixed competence negotiations: the case of the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. J Common Mark Stud 44(5):1023–1050. http://ssrn.com/abstract=950067 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00672.x. Accessed 6 June 2013

  • SAGPyA Argentina (2003) ‘Resolución 39 Liberación al Medio de Organismos Vegetales Genéticamente Modificados (OVGM)’. Secretaria Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos, Republica de Argentina, July 11, 2003. http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/programas/conabia/resolucion39.PDF

  • SAGPyA Argentina (2006) Resolución 212: Producción de Semilla de Maíz Genéticamente Modificada en Etapa de Evaluación en Republica Argentina Secretaria Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos, Republica de Argentina, May 15 2006. http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/programas/conabia/res212.pdf

  • SAGPyA Argentina (2007) ‘Resolución 60: Régimen para la Comercialización de Organismos Genéticamente Mejorados que Contengan Eventos Acumulados’. Secretaria Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos, Republica de Argentina, February 5, 2007. http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/programas/conabia/Resolucion_60_2007.pdf

  • Schultz TW (1964) Transforming traditional agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer HW (1970) Dualism revisited: a new approach to the problems of the dual society in development countries. J Dev Stud 7(1):60–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smale MP, Zambrano G, Gruere JB 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. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/pv10.pdf and http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/0896295117FPRev10. Accessed 6 June 2013

  • Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein AJ, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2009) The global pipeline of new GM crops: implications of asynchronous approval for international trade. JRC Technical Report EUR 23486 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2420. Accessed 6 June 2013

  • Takeshima H, Gruère G (2011) Pressure group competition and GMO regulations in Sub-Saharan Africa: insights from the Becker model. J Agric Food Ind Organ 9(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1542-0485.1325. Accessed 6 June 2013

  • Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher (2000) Civil society and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Paper presented at the Montreal International Forum FORUM 2000, Montreal, Canada. http://fimforum.org/en/library/TEgziabher2000.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2013

  • Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher (2009) The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: history, content and implementation from a developing country perspective. In: Traavik T, Ching LL (eds) Biosafety first. Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA-FAS (2012) China—People’s Republic of—Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. GAIN Report Number CH132046, USDA FAS, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2008) World Bank Development Report 2008: agriculture for development. The World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA

    José Falck-Zepeda

  2. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Karinne Ludlow

  3. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

    Stuart J. Smyth

Authors
  1. José Falck-Zepeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karinne Ludlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stuart J. Smyth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Falck-Zepeda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Monash University, VIC, Australia

    Karinne Ludlow

  2. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

    Stuart J. Smyth

  3. International Food Policy Research Inst., Washington, DC, District of Columbia, USA

    José Falck-Zepeda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Falck-Zepeda, J., Ludlow, K., Smyth, S. (2014). International Context of Socioeconomic Considerations and the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms. In: Ludlow, K., Smyth, S., Falck-Zepeda, J. (eds) Socio-Economic Considerations in Biotechnology Regulation. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 37. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9440-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation