Abstract
The Norwegian Gene Technology Act stands out by specifying five concerns. It requires that the gene technology shall not be harmful for human health and the environment, but additionally that deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) shall be of benefit to society, ethically justifiable and socially acceptable, and is likely to promote sustainable development. As a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), Norway is in general bound to implement EU directives, but according to EEA Agreement Annex XX (Environment), Article 25.d(c) Norway can apply national legislation relating to GMOs for other concerns than health and environment. The restrictive approach implies that until 2015 no GMOs have been accepted in Norway, but assessments of EU-approved GMOs are under way. While human rights is neither specified in the Gene Technology Act or the Food Act, nor in the constitution, Norway’s general policies confirms the right to food.
The chapter is an updated version of a report that was prepared with inputs from the Norwegian Food Safety Authority and the Norwegian Environmental Agency. Any errors remain the responsibility of the author.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There are several reasons why the GM regulations 1829/2003 and 1830/2003 are not implemented. GMO issues are political sensitive in Norway, but it must be noted that Norway has made a draft decision which must be accepted by other EFTA/EEA countries (Iceland and Lichtenstein) before EFTA and EU can make a decision in the EEA Joint Committee. If there will be an implementation of the GM regulations in Norway, GM and GMO products approved in the EU will still not be automatically approved in Norway. But it will no longer be necessary to submit separate applications to Norway, because the applications will apply to the whole EEA.
- 2.
Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board, Sustainability, benefit to the community and ethics in the assessment of genetically modified organisms (2009); http://www.bion.no/filarkiv/2010/07/2009_11_18_diskusjonsnotat_baerekraft_engelsk.pdf (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 3.
In addition, six GMOs are for feed; and two are flowers; see Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, Rettslig status for genmodifiserte produkter [Legal status of genetically modified products] (2014); https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/aktuelt/Rettslig-status-for-genmodifiserte-produkter/id2342458/?regj_oss=20 (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 4.
Norwegian Food Safety Authority, Bakgrunn for avslag om å bruke genmodifisert fiskefôr [Background for rejection of application on the use of genetically modified feed] (2014); www.mattilsynet.no/planter_og_dyrking/genmodifisering/bakgrunn_for_avslag_om_aa_bruke_genmodifisert_fiskefor.16613 (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 5.
Government of Norway, Political platform for a government formed by the Conservative Party and the Progress Party 31 (2013); https://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumenter/politisk-plattform/id743014 (Feb. 2, 2015). It also says – at p 45 – that it will “...initiate an evaluation of the biotechnology law…”, but from the context where it appears, this will primarily apply to medical use for human beings.
- 6.
For the various parties‘ positions (in Norwegian), as expressed in the Parliament in 2013; http://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Referater/Stortinget/2011-2012/120319/1 (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 7.
Nationen, Listhaug sier nei til GMO [Listhaug says no to GMOs] (2014); http://www.nationen.no/landbruk/listhaug-sier-nei-til-gmo/ (Feb. 13, 2015); see also supra note 24 for a recent decision in the Norwegian Parliament, adopted unanimously.
- 8.
For a summary of the Eurobarometer 2010 survey (EB 73.1) (presented in Norwegian, but with easily readable graphs), see: Torben Hviid Nielsen, Holdninger til bioteknologi: Nye vinder? 21 Genialt 12–13 (2012); http://www.bion.no/filarkiv/2012/06/GENialt_3_2012web.pdf (Feb. 2, 2015). (Moreover, in a survey undertaken by the Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute (NILF) in 2011, less than 15 % of those surveyed agreed that cheap food is more important than animal welfare, food safety and food taste, while 85 % of respondents disagreed. (Moreover, 70 % said that adequate access to food, lively villages, environmentally friendly production, beautiful landscape and a reasonable salary for the farmers, are all more important than cheap food.)
- 9.
Government of Norway, Multifunctional agriculture – the case of Norway (2002); http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/LMD/Vedlegg/Brosjyrer_veiledere_rapporter/179755-multifunc_red.pdf (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 10.
Norwegian Parliament, Dokument 12:31 (2011–2012) Grunnlovsforslag fra Per-Kristian Foss, Martin Kolberg, Marit Nybakk, Jette F. Christensen, Hallgeir H. Langeland, Per Olaf Lundteigen, Geir Jørgen Bekkevold og Trine Skei Grande 5; for alternative proposals; see also p 10 and p 11 (2012).
- 11.
Norwegian Constitution, Section 104; https://www.stortinget.no/Global/pdf/Constitutionenglish.pdf?epslanguage=no (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 12.
Government of Norway, Interim National Report 5–6; and Annex 1 (2005); http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/no/no-nr-cpbi-en.pdf (Feb. 2, 2015); the most recent report does not include a similarly detailed list; see Government of Norway, Second Regular National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2011); http://en.biosafetyscanner.org/pdf/doc/478_allegato.pdf (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
In line with its restrictive approach, Norway was playing an active role in the Codex Alimentarius, both the task force on biotechnology (TFBT) and Codex Committee on food labelling (CCFL), which have now fulfilled their tasks and have been discontinued.
- 16.
They both require that “Any person shall exercise due care to avoid any risk…”
- 17.
Ingrid Olesen, G. Kristin Rosendal, Morten Rye, Morten Walløe Tvedt and Hans B. Bentsen, Who Shall own the Genes of Farmed Fish? in Global Privatization and Its Impact (Ingrid J. Hagen and Thea S. Halvorsen eds., 2009).
- 18.
Section 1 b, part 2, 4 reads (extracts): “the following, in particular, shall not be patentable: … processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals, which are likely to cause them, suffering without any substantial medical benefit to man or animal, including animals resulting from such process.”
- 19.
For a critical report, see the Norwegian Advisory Board on Ethical Aspects of Patenting, Patentnemnd uten portefølje? En analyse av etiske utfordringer ved patentering (part of the report is in English] (2008); http://www.etikkom.no/Documents/Publikasjoner-som-PDF/Patentnemnd%20uten%20portef%C3%B8lje%20(2008).pdf (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 20.
The responsible in the Agency is quoted as saying: “It is serious that genetically modified aquarium fish are imported and sold in this country. No genetically modified animals are approved in Norway, and therefore the sale and keeping of such animals is illegal”; see http://www.nationen.no/2012/11/30/nyheter/gmo/genmodifisering/genmodifisert/fisk/7831505 (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 21.
Section 8 b reads (extracts): “If an invention concerns or uses biological material or traditional knowledge, the patent application shall include information on the country from which the inventor collected or received the material or the knowledge (the providing country). If it follows from the national law in the providing country that access to biological material or use of traditional knowledge shall be subject to prior consent, the application shall state whether such consent has been obtained. […] Breach of the duty to disclose information is subject to penalty in accordance with the General Civil Penal Code § 166 [false declaration to public authorities]. The duty to disclose information is without prejudice to the processing of patent applications or the validity of rights arising from granted patents.”
- 22.
For the most recent health and environment risk assessments, see Norwegian Scientific Committee on Food Safety, Endelig helse- og miljørisikovurdering av genmodifisert mais 59122 x NK603 (2014); Endelig helse- og miljørisikovurdering av genmodifisert mais T25 (2014; considered not to be valid in Norway, according to Ministry for Climate and Environment; supra note 3); Endelig helse- og miljørisikovurdering av genmodifisert mais MON 89034 (2014); and Endelig helse- og miljørisikovurdering av genmodifisert mais NK603 x MON810 (2014); all available at http://www.vkm.no/faggruppene/faggruppen-for-genmodifiserte-organismer/avsluttede-risikovurderinger (Feb. 2, 2015).
- 23.
See Olesen et al., supra note 17.
- 24.
All political parties in the Norwegian Parliament said in Innst. 231 S (2014–2015) Innstilling til Stortinget fra Energi- og miljøkomiteen, adopted 14 April 2015: “The Parliament requests the government to ensure an approval procedure for GMOs which implies that each GMO is assessed under the Gene Technology Act, specifying whether the GMO in question shall be prohibited, before the GMO can be legal to sell in Norway.” Two other decisions, one on prohibiting NK603; see supra note 22, were made with majority votes. For a general assessment of the Norwegian legislation, see Fauchald, Ole Kristian, Genetically Modified Organisms and Precaution in Norwegian Law, in Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Approaches from the Nordic countries, the EU and USA (Nicolas de Sadeleer ed., 2007).
- 25.
Norwegian Food Safety Authority, supra note 4.
- 26.
Norwegian Scientific Committee on Food Safety, supra note 22 (on T25). The November 2014 announcement by the Norwegian government, supra note 3, said that the approval of this maize line, T25, was no longer valid, but failed to inform that this was due to the expiration of the 10 year approval period. As the new application for approval of T25 was submitted under regulation 1829/2003, which does not yet apply to Norway, see supra note 1, it was possible for the Norwegian Government to conclude that it is not valid in Norway.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haugen, H.M. (2016). Genetic Technology and Food Security: Country Report – Norway. In: Norer, R. (eds) Genetic Technology and Food Safety. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23995-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23995-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23993-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23995-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)