Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

2012 Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers

Commercialisation of GM Crops: Comparison of Regulatory Frameworks

  • Wendy Craig
  • Siva Reddy Vanga
  • Jorge Cabrera Medaglia
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_837

Definition of the Subject

This contribution describes and compares the regulation of GMOs and the underpinning legislative frameworks in selected countries from around the world. It also includes a description of the relevant international agreements related to biosafety and a description of the main characteristics and attributes of a modern biosafety regulatory framework in this area.

Introduction

The rapid development and deployment of modern biotechnology in the last decades have made biosafety a critical issue. Although modern biotechnology has the potential of benefiting agricultural interests in developing countries as well as overall human welfare, living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remain a source of concern with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, as well as to human health. The perceived risks, which relate to the release of GMOs into the environment as well as the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Cordonier Segger M-C, Perron-Welch F, Frison (eds) (2012) Introduction. In: Legal aspects of implementing the Cartagena protocol: Biosafety becomes binding. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    James C (2010) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief No. 42. International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications (ISAAA), New York, USA. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/42/executivesummary/pdf/Brief42-ExecutiveSummary-English.pdf
  3. 3.
    James C (2009) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2009. The first fourteen years, 1996 to 2009. ISAAA Brief No. 41. International service for the acquisition of agri-biotech applications (ISAAA), New York, USA. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/pdf/Brief41-ExecutiveSummary-English.pdf
  4. 4.
    Falck-Zepeda J, Cavalieri A, Zambrano P (2008) Delivering genetically engineered crops to poor farmers. Recommendations for improved biosafety regulations in developing countries. IFPRI Policy Brief 14. Washington DC, USA. http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/bp014.pdf
  5. 5.
    Zarrilli S (2005) International trade in GMOs and GM products: National and multilateral legal frameworks. Policy issues in international trade and commodities study series, 29. United Nations conference on trade and development, New York, USA and Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC18565.htm
  6. 6.
    Mugabe J (2003) International trends in modern biotechnology: Entry by and implications for African countries. ATPS special paper series No. 15, African technology policy studies network (ATPS), Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.atpsnet.org/content/files/documents/SpecialPaperSeries15.pdf
  7. 7.
    Anderson K, Valenzuela E, Jackson LA (2006) Recent and prospective adoption of genetically modified cotton: a global CGE analysis of economic impacts. World Bank policy research working paper 3917. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2006/05/10/000016406_20060510092736/Rendered/PDF/wps3917.pdf
  8. 8.
    US Department of Agriculture (2006) Argentina. Biotechnology Annual Report 2006. Foreign agricultural service GAIN Report AR6027, Washington DC, USA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200610/146249372.pdf
  9. 9.
    Trigo EJ, Cap EJ (2003) The impact of the introduction of transgenic crops in Argentinean agriculture. J Agro-biotechnol Manage Econ (AgBioForum) 6(3):87–94, http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n3/v6n3a01-trigo.pdf
  10. 10.
    James C (2006) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2006. ISAAA Brief No. 35. ISAAA, New York, USA. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/35/executivesummary/pdf/Brief35-ExecutiveSummary-English.pdf
  11. 11.
    Nap J, Metz P, Escaler M, Conner A (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part 1. Overview of current status and regulations. Plant J 33(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit (2006) A comparative analysis of experiences and lessons from the UNEP-GEF biosafety projects. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-Global Environment Facility (GEF), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unep.ch/biosafety/development/devdocuments/UNEPGEFBiosafety_comp_analysisDec2006.pdf
  13. 13.
    Burachik M, Traynor P (2002) Analysis of a national biosafety system: regulatory policies and procedures in Argentina. ISNAR Country Report no. 63, International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands. ftp://ftp.cgiar.org/isnar/Publicat/cr63.pdf
  14. 14.
    BATS (2003) Genetically modified (GM) crops: molecular and regulatory details. Version 2. http://www.bats.ch/gmo-watch/GVO-report140703.pdf
  15. 15.
    Baumüller H (2004) Domestic import regulations for genetically modified organisms and their compatibility with WTO rules. Asian Biotechnol Dev Review 6(3):33–42. http://www.ris.org.in/images/RIS_images/pdf/abdr_July044.pdf
  16. 16.
    SAGPyA (2003) Resolution No. 39/03. Annex. Application for permit to release genetically modified plant organisms into the environment. Secretariat of agriculture, livestock, fisheries and food (SAGPyA), Argentina. http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/programas/biotecnologia/resolutionn39annex.pdf
  17. 17.
    SAGPyA (2002) Resolution No. 412/02. Requisitos para la evaluación de la aptitud alimentaria de los de organismos genéticamente modificados. Secretariat of agriculture, livestock, fisheries and food (SAGPyA), Argentina. http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/programas/biotecnologia/marco_regulatorio/028_412.php
  18. 18.
    Macdonald P, Yarrow S (2003) Regulation of Bt crops in Canada. J Invertebr Pathol 83:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Finstad K, Bonfils A-C, Shearer W, Macdonald P (2007) Trees with novel traits in Canada: regulations and related scientific issues. Tree Genet Genomes 3:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (1994) Regulatory directive Dir94-08: Assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits. Ottawa, Canada. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/dir/dir9408e.shtml#ch1
  21. 21.
    Industry Canada (1998) The federal regulatory framework for biotechnology (1993), Annex C of the 1998 Canadian biotechnology strategy: an ongoing renewal process. http://www.biostrategy.gc.ca/CMFiles/1998strategyE49RAI-8312004-5365.pdf
  22. 22.
    CFIA (2005) Long term testing/substantial equivalence. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/reg/equive.shtml
  23. 23.
    Health Canada (2006) Guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods. Ottawa, Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/gmf-agm/guidelines-lignesdirectrices_e.pdf
  24. 24.
    CFIA (2006) Directive 96–13: import permit requirements for plants with novel traits (including transgenic plants), and their products. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/protect/dir/d-96-13e.pdf
  25. 25.
    Huang J, Wang Q (2002) Agricultural biotechnology development and policy in China. J Agro-biotechnol Manag Econ (AgBioForum) 5(4):122–135, http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n4/v5n4a01-huang.htm
  26. 26.
    Karplus V, Deng XW (2008) Agricultural biotechnology in China: origins and prospects. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen ZL (2006) Chinese agricultural biotechnology in the field. In: Agricultural biotechnology: economic growth through new products, partnerships and workforce development, NABC Report 18. National agricultural biotechnology council (NABC), Ithaca, USA. http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/nabc_18/NABC18_Chen.pdf
  28. 28.
    Pray CE, Naseem A (2007) Supplying crop biotechnology to the poor: opportunities and constraints. J Dev Stud 43(1):192–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pray C, Ramaswami B, Huang J, Hu R, Bengali P, Zhang H (2006) Costs and enforcement of biosafety regulations in India and China. Int J Technol Globalisation 2(1/2):137–157Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang Y, Johnston S (2007) The status of GM rice R&D in China. Nat Biotechnol 25(7):717–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang Y, Johnston S (2007) Review on GM rice risk assessment in China. UNU-IAS Working Paper No. 152. United Nations University-Institute of Advanced Studies, Yokohama, Japan. http://www.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/152YanqingWang.pdf
  32. 32.
    US Department of Agriculture (2004) China, Peoples republic of: food and agricultural import regulations and standards (FAIRS) Country Report 2004. Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report CH4028, Washington DC, USA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200408/146107026.doc
  33. 33.
    OECD (2011) Adapting agriculture to climate change: what role for biotechnology? ENV/EPOC/WPCID(2011)2, Working party on climate, Investment and Development, Environment Policy Committee, Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    US Department of Agriculture (2005) China, Peoples Republic of: Biotechnology Annual Report 2005. Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report CH5069, Washington DC, USA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200601/146176661.pdf
  35. 35.
    Foster M, Berry P, Hogan J (2003) Market access issues for GM products. Australian bureau of agricultural and resource economics (ABARE) eReport 03.13, Canberra, Australia. http://abareonlineshop.com/PdfFiles/PC12559.pdf
  36. 36.
    Conner A, Glare T, Nap J (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J 33:19–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    König A, Cockburn A, Crevel RWR, Debruyne E, Grafstroem R, Hammerling U, Kimber I, Knudsen I, Kuiper HA, Peijnenburg AACM, Penninks AH, Poulsen M, Schauzu M, Wal JM (2004) Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1047–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    GEAC (2010) Yearwise list of commercially released varieties of Bt cotton hybrids by GEAC. Genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. http://igmoris.nic.in/files/Final_commercially_approved.pdf
  39. 39.
    APCoAB (2006) Bt cotton in India – a status report. Asia-Pacific consortium on agricultural biotechnology (APCoAB), New Delhi, India. p 34. http://www.apcoab.org/documents/bt_cotton.pdf
  40. 40.
    Damodaran A (2005) Re-engineering biosafety regulations in India: towards a critique of policy, law and prescriptions. Law Environ Develop J 1(1):1–16, http://www.lead-journal.org/content/05001.pdf
  41. 41.
    Government of India (1989) Rules for the manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous micro organisms genetically engineered organisms or cells. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. http://www.envfor.nic.in/legis/hsm/hsm3.html
  42. 42.
    Government of India (1998) Revised guidelines for research in transgenic plants & guidelines for toxicity and allergenicity evaluation of transgenic seeds, plants and plant parts. Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. August 1998. http://dbtindia.nic.in/policy/guidelines_98.pdf
  43. 43.
    US Department of Agriculture (2005) India biotechnology annual 2005. Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report IN5078, Washington DC, USA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200507/146130314.pdf
  44. 44.
    Indira A, Bhagavan MR, Virgin I (2005) Agricultural biotechnology and biosafety in India: expectations, outcomes and lessons. Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden. http://www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/05-268-001.pdf
  45. 45.
    Gupta A (2002) Ensuring “Safe use” of biotechnology: key challenges. Economic and Political Weekly, 6 July 2002, pp 2762–2769. http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/9705.pdf
  46. 46.
    Chaturvedi S, Chawii L (2005) RIS-DP # 99. Research and information system for developing countries, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    National Commission on Farmers (2006) Fifth and final report. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. http://krishakayog.gov.in/revdraft.pdf
  48. 48.
    Bhan MK (2007) BIO 2007, Boston, 9 May 2007. http://www.ciionline.org/news_new/newsMain09-05-2007_2.asp
  49. 49.
    Department of Biotechnology and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (2008) Guidelines & standard operating procedures (SOP) for confined field trials of genetically engineered (GE) plants. Government of India. http://igmoris.nic.in/Guideline_index.htm
  50. 50.
    Indian Council of Medical Research (2008) Guidelines for the safety assessment of foods derived from genetically engineered plants. New Dehli, India. http://igmoris.nic.in/files%5CCoverpage.pdfGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Department of Biotechnology (2008) Protocols for food and feed safety assessment of GE crops. Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. http://igmoris.nic.in/files%5CCoverpage1.pdfGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Indian Ministry of Agriculture (2006) Protection of plant varieties and farmers’ rights regulations, 2006. The Gazette of India: Extraordinary (Part II Sec. 3(i)), 7th December 2006, New Delhi, India. http://www.plantauthority.in/PDFile/Indgazette.pdf
  53. 53.
    Secretary of Agriculture, the Republic of the Philippines (2001) Policy statement on modern biotechnology. http://www.ncbp.dost.gov.ph/downloads/PSMB.pdf
  54. 54.
    Republic of the Philippines (1998) Republic Act No. 8435, Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act, 10 June 1998. http://www.da.gov.ph/agrilaws/ra/afma.pdf
  55. 55.
    APCoAB (2005) Commercialization of Bt corn in the Philippines. A status report. Asia-Pacific consortium on agricultural biotechnology (APCoAB), New Dehli, India. p 41. http://www.apcoab.org/documents/bt_corn.pdf
  56. 56.
    Yorobe JM Jr, Quicoy CB (2006) Economic impact of Bt corn in the Philippines. The Philippine Agric Sci 89(3):258–267Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    US Department of Agriculture (2005) Philippines Biotechnology Annual Report 2005. Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report RP5027, Washington DC, USA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200507/146130361.pdf
  58. 58.
    Republic of the Philippines (1990) Executive Order 430 Constituting the NCBP, 1990. Government of Republic of the Philippines. http://www.ncbp.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=55&func=download&filecatid=25
  59. 59.
    Manalo AJ, Ramon GP (2007) The cost of product development of Bt corn event MON810 in the Philippines. J Agro-biotechnol Manag Econ (AgBioForum) 10(1):19–32, http://www.agbioforum.org/v10n1/v10n1a03-manalo.pdf
  60. 60.
    de Leon A, Manalo A, Cielo Guilatco F (2004) The cost implications of GM food labeling in the Philippines. http://www.bcp.org.ph/downloads/CostImplicationsofGMFoodLabelinginthePhilippines.pdf
  61. 61.
    Department of Agriculture’s Administrative Order No. 8, s. 2002. Government of Republic of the Philippines. http://www.ncbp.dost.gov.ph/downloads/commercialization.pdf.
  62. 62.
    Andanda AP (2006) Developing legal regulatory frameworks for modern biotechnology: the possibilities and limits in the case of GMOs. Afr J Biotechnol 5(15):1360–1369, http://academicjournals.org/ajb/PDF/pdf2006/3Aug/Andanda.pdf
  63. 63.
    Department of Science and Technology (2001) National biotechnology strategy for South Africa. Government of the Republic of South Africa. http://www.dst.gov.za/publications/reports/dst_biotechnology_strategy.PDF
  64. 64.
    Cloete TE, Nel LH, Theron J (2006) Biotechnology in South Africa. Trends Biotechnol 24(12):557–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    van der Walt WJ (2006) South African GM crop adoption in 2006. African Crops News Service. Newsletter May 2006. http://www.africancrops.net/news/may06/gm-southafrica.htm
  66. 66.
    US Department of Agriculture (2005) Republic of South Africa. Biotechnology Annual Report 2005. Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report SF5024, Washington DC, USA. http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200512/146131662.pdf
  67. 67.
    Government of the Republic of South Africa (1997) Genetically Modified Organisms Act (No. 15 of 1997), Government Gazette, vol 383, no. 18029. 23 May 1997. http://www.info.gov.za/acts/1997/act15.htm
  68. 68.
    Government of the Republic of South Africa (2005) The GMO Amendment Bill. Government Gazette 27913, 26 August 2005. http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/bills/2005/b34-05.pdf
  69. 69.
    Gouse M, Pray CE, Kirsten J, Schimmelpfennig D (2005) A GM subsistence crop in Africa: the case of Bt white maize in South Africa. Int J Biotechnol 7(1/2/3):84–94, http://inderscience.metapress.com/media/7hxdqlmumk0y0qgunm13/contributions/j/d/2/p/jd2pphettplpyg50.pdf
  70. 70.
    RSA Department of Agriculture (2004) Guideline document for use by the advisory committee when considering proposals/applications for activities with genetically modified organisms. Government of the Republic of South Africa (RSA). http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/geneticresources/GuidelinesforAC-May2004.pdf
  71. 71.
    RSA Guidelines. Public notification in terms of the Genetically Modified Organisms Act, 1997 (Regulation 6). Republic of South Africa (RSA). http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/geneticresources/publicnotice.pdf
  72. 72.
    Bernauer T, Meins E (2003) Technological revolution meets policy and the market: explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation. Eur J Polit Res 42:643–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    US Office of Science and Technology Policy (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology, United States Federal Register, 51:23302, June 26, 1986. http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/Coordinated_Framework_1986_Federal_Register.html
  74. 74.
    MacKenzie DJ (2000) International comparison of regulatory frameworks for food products of biotechnology. Prepared for the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods. http://www.cbac-cccb.ca/epic/internet/incbac-cccb.nsf/vwapj/InternatComparisons_MacKenzie.pdf/$FILE/InternatComparisons_MacKenzie.pdf
  75. 75.
    US Department of Agriculture (2001) Economic issues in biotechnology. economic research service, Agriculture Information Bulletin no. 762, Washington DC, USA. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/aib762/
  76. 76.
    US Department of Agriculture (1987) Introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering which are plant pests or which there is reason to believe are plant pests, 7 CFR Parts 330 and 340. United States Federal Register 52(115), June 16 1987. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/687rule.txt
  77. 77.
    US Department of Agriculture (1997) Simplification of requirements and procedures for genetically engineered organisms and products, 7 CFR Part 340. United States Federal Register 62(85), May 2 1997. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/r597rule.pdf
  78. 78.
    US National Research Council (2000) Genetically modified pest-protected plants, science and regulations. National Research Council, National Academy, Washington DC, USA, pp 104–207. http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/9795.html#toc
  79. 79.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Plant incorporated protectants. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, USA. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/index.htm
  80. 80.
    US Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Plant-incorporated protectants, final rules and proposed rule, 40 CFR Parts 152 and 174. United States federal register 66(139), 19 July 2001. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/pip_rule.pdf
  81. 81.
    Jaffe G (2012) Crafting national biosafety regulatory systems. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Perron-Welch F, Frison (eds) Legal aspects of implementing the Cartagena protocol: Biosafety becomes binding. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada. http://www.cbd.int/biosafety/protocol.shtml.
  83. 83.
    Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) Convention on biological diversity. Montreal, Canada. http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
  84. 84.
    Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) Decision EMI/3. Adoption of the Cartagena protocol and interim arrangements. First extraordinary meeting (ExCOP 1), 22–23 Feb 1999, Cartagena, Colombia 1999, and Montreal, 24–29 Jan 2000. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/excop-01/official/excop-01-03-en.pdf
  85. 85.
    Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2003) The Cartagena protocol on biosafety: a record of the negotiations. Montreal, Canada. http://bch.cbd.int/database/attachment/?id=10886
  86. 86.
    Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) Cartagena protocol on biosafety ratification list. Montreal, Canada. http://www.cbd.int/doc/lists/cpb-ratifications.pdf
  87. 87.
    Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) Nagoya – Kuala lumpur supplementary protocol on liability and redress to the cartagena protocol on biosafety. Montreal, Canada. http://bch.cbd.int/database/attachment/?id=10898
  88. 88.
    Cabrera Medaglia J (in press) Biosafety regulatory frameworks in the Americas. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Perron-Welch F, Frison (eds) Legal aspects of implementing the Cartagena protocol: Biosafety becomes binding. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    WTO (1994) Marrakesh agreement establishing the world trade organization. Final Act of the 1986–1994 uruguay round of trade negotiations. World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm
  90. 90.
    WTO (1994) Agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS Agreement) (Article 1 – 14). Final Act of the 1986 –1994 uruguay round of trade negotiations. Annex 1a, Multilateral agreements on trade in goods. World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm
  91. 91.
    WTO (1994) Agreement on technical barriers to trade (TBT Agreement) (Article 1 – 15). Final Act of the 1986 – 1994 Uruguay round of trade negotiations. Annex 1a, multilateral agreements on trade in goods. World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm
  92. 92.
    WTO (1994) Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS Agreement). Final Act of the 1986 –1994 uruguay round of trade negotiations. Annex 1, Multilateral agreements on trade in goods. World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm
  93. 93.
    WTO (1994) Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes. Final Act of the 1986 – 1994 uruguay round of trade negotiations. Annex 2, multilateral agreements on trade in goods. World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/28-dsu_e.htm
  94. 94.
    WTO (1994) General agreement on tariffs and trade. Final act of the 1986 –1994 uruguay round of trade negotiations. Annex 1A, multilateral agreements on trade in goods. World Trade Organization (WTO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/06-gatt_e.htm
  95. 95.
    CAC (1999) Summary and conclusions. Report of the twenty-third session, FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy, 28 June–3 July 1999. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, pp 124. www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/518/Al99_37e.pdf
  96. 96.
    CAC (2003) Alinorm 03/41. Report of the twenty-sixth session, FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy, 30 June–7 July 2003. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/alinorm03/al03_41e.pdf
  97. 97.
    CAC (2003) Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology. CAC/GL 44–2003. Amended in 2008. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10007/CXG_044e.pdf
  98. 98.
    CAC (2003) Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants. CAC/GL 45–2003. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10021/CXG_045e.pdf
  99. 99.
    CAC (2003) Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods produced using recombinant DNA microorganisms. CAC/GL 46–2003. Amended in 2008. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10025/CXG_046e.pdf
  100. 100.
    CAC (2008) Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA animals. CAC/GL 68–2008. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/11023/CXG_068e.pdf
  101. 101.
    CAC (2008) Alinorm 08/31/REP. Report of the thirty-first session, FAO headquarters, Rome, Italy, 30 June–4 July 2008. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/698/al31REPe.pdf
  102. 102.
    CAC (2007) Alinorm 07/30/22. Report of the thirty-fifth session of the Codex committee on food labelling, Ottawa, Canada, 30 April–4 May 2007. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/report/682/al30_22e.pdf
  103. 103.
    CAC (2007) Working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application by governments. CAC/GL 62–2007. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/download/standards/10751/CXG_062e.pdf
  104. 104.
    FAO (1997) International plant protection convention. New revised text approved by the FAO conference at its 29th session, November 1997. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded//publications/13742.New_Revised_Text_of_the_International_Plant_Protectio.pdf
  105. 105.
    Secretariat of the IPPC (2004) Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms. International plant protection convention (IPPC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/1146658377367_ISPM11.pdf
  106. 106.
    OIRSA (2000) Eighth meeting of the executive committee, 31 March 2000. Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA), San Salvador, El Salvador. http://www.oirsa.org/documentos/actasyresoluciones/resoluciones/xiii-31-mar.-2000-recomendaciones.pdf
  107. 107.
    CGRFA (2007) Code of conduct on biotechnology as it relates to genetic resources for food and agriculture. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/ag//CGRFA/biocode.htm
  108. 108.
    UNECE (2001) UN recommendations on the transport of dangerous Goods – model regulations. Twelfth revised edition. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/unrec/12_e.html
  109. 109.
    UNECE (1998) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html
  110. 110.
    UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit (2003) Guide for the implementation of national biosafety frameworks. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-Global Environment Facility (GEF) Projects on Implementation of national biosafety frameworks, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unep.org/biosafety/Documents/Impl.Guide-RegReg.pdf
  111. 111.
    McLean MA, Frederick RJ, Traynor P, Cohen JI, Komen J (2002) A conceptual framework for implementing biosafety: linking policy, capacity and regulation. Briefing paper No. 47, Program for biosafety systems, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA. http://programs.ifpri.org/isnararchive/publications/pdf/bp-47.pdf
  112. 112.
    Burachik M, Traynor P (2002) An analysis of a national biosafety system: regulatory policies and procedures in Argentina. Country Report No. 63, Program for biosafety systems, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA. http://programs.ifpri.org/isnararchive/publications/pdf/cr63.pdf
  113. 113.
    Jaffe G (2004) Regulating transgenic crops: a comparative analysis of different regulatory processes. Transgenic Res 13(1):5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit (2005) Toolkit for the development project, phase 3 – Drafting the NBF. Part I: Formulation of the regulatory regime, project on development of national biosafety frameworks. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – Global Environment Facility (GEF), Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unep.org/biosafety/Documents/Drafting_the_NBF_Formulation_of_the_regulatory_regime.pdf
  115. 115.
    Garforth K (2005) When biosafety becomes binding. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Weeramantry CG (eds) Sustainable justice: reconciling economic, social and environmental law. Martinus Nijhoff, BostonGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2004) Issues in the regulation of genetically engineered plants and animals. Washington, DC, USA. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Food_and_Biotechnology/food_biotech_regulation_0404.pdf
  117. 117.
    OECD (1986) Recombinant DNA safety considerations: safety considerations for industrial, agricultural and environmental applications of organisms derived by recombinant DNA techniques. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/54/1943773.pdf
  118. 118.
    US National Research Council (1987) Introduction of recombinant DNA-engineered organisms into the environment, Key Issues. White Paper. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    US National Research Council (2004) Safety of genetically engineered foods. National Academies Press, Washington DC, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309092094/html/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy Craig
    • 1
  • Siva Reddy Vanga
    • 2
  • Jorge Cabrera Medaglia
    • 3
  1. 1.Biosafety UnitInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB)TriesteItaly
  2. 2.ICGEB, Plant Biology: Plant Transformation GroupNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, Lead Counsel on Biodiversity and Biosafety, Montreal CanadaUniversity of Costa RicaSan Rafael de HerediaCosta Rica