IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abk/jajeba/ajebasp.2009.206.212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Genetically Modified Organism Trade Route and Biosafety-Is It a Failing Synthesis?

Author

Listed:
  • Debdatta Dobe
  • Rohini Sen

Abstract

Problem statement: GM regulations have spawned international conflicting reactions especially between US and EU, with countries requiring food aid caught midway. This article covers the following issues: Whether biotechnology policies of other countries affect the developing countries’ trade in agricultural crops?" Does unregulated GM expansion and contamination, render the system fallacious? Can there be synthesis between trade and environment? Approach: This article also explores "long term effects of trading substitute GM components. Extensive research has been followed to identify the key areas of international trade and environment pertaining to GMO’s which require immediate international attention. Results: The biotech war emerged with the Cartagena Protocol which permits countries to ban unsafe GM products and requires labeling of shipments that threaten traditional crops or biodiversity. In response to stricter stand of EU banning most GMOs, the US initiated litigation before WTO which in a preliminary ruling declared EU restriction violative of trade rules. Fear of export losses discourages Asia to approve new GMOs. U N reports that, Asia’s regulatory framework is flawed and large number of tests, required to approve GMO’s safe release are not conducted causing "irreversible loss of genetic diversity". Governments address these concerns differentially. Countries like Canada, China, and US incorporated GMOs commercially. While EU and Japan wait for full environmental assessment, the EU has issued a Directive on release and commercialization of GM crops. The EU view sharply contrasts to the WTO’s, whose contribution to sustainable development of the environment lies in trade opening in goods and innovations like GM crops. WTO does not accept the process of production as cause for trade restrictions, narrowly interpreting the exception to trade rules under Article XX. International regulations on GMOs, (considered similar to harmful agricultural crops) are undefined. Before NAFTA, corporations are challenging these as "barriers to trade" while Environmentalists are advocating the "precautionary principle". Conclusion/Recommendations: The current climate of controversy in such key aspects across the world complicates the possibility of synthesis of trade and bio safety of GM food. Furthermore, the concept of food aid ensures that GM trade remains prevalent and unchecked. Thus, the answer to the projected environmental damage through such passage and the co-existence of trade laws alongside bio-safety demands an alteration in national as well as WTO legislations. This article attempts to evaluate the possibilities of a legislative make-over and the nuances of environmental safeguards against the proposed problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Debdatta Dobe & Rohini Sen, 2009. "Genetically Modified Organism Trade Route and Biosafety-Is It a Failing Synthesis?," American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, Science Publications, vol. 1(3), pages 206-212, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:abk:jajeba:ajebasp.2009.206.212
    DOI: 10.3844/ajebasp.2009.206.212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://thescipub.com/pdf/ajebasp.2009.206.212.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://thescipub.com/abstract/ajebasp.2009.206.212
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3844/ajebasp.2009.206.212?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John E. Losey & Linda S. Rayor & Maureen E. Carter, 1999. "Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae," Nature, Nature, vol. 399(6733), pages 214-214, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grant Lewison, 2007. "The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 439-458, September.
    2. Springer, A. & Mattas, Konstadinos & Papastefanou, G. & Tsioumanis, Asterios, 2002. "Comparing Consumer Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Food in Europe," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24858, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. B. Wang & H. Shen & X. Yang & T. Guo & B. Zhang & W. Yan, 2013. "Effects of chitinase-transgenic (McChit1) tobacco on the rhizospheric microflora and enzyme activities of the purple soil," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 59(6), pages 241-246.
    4. Mozumdar, Lavlu & Islam, Mohammad & Saha, Sumitra, 2012. "Genetically modified organisms and sustainable crop production: A critical review," Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh Agricultural University Research System (BAURES), vol. 10.
    5. Millstone, Erik, 2009. "Science, risk and governance: Radical rhetorics and the realities of reform in food safety governance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 624-636, May.
    6. Pardey, Philip G. & Koo, Bonwoo & Drew, Jennifer & Nottenburg, Carol, 2012. "The Evolving Landscape of IP Rights for Plant Varieties in the United States, 1930-2008," Staff Papers 119346, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    7. Hartung, Frank & Krause, Dörthe & Sprink, Thorben & Wilhelm, Ralf, 2024. "Anwendungen der Grünen Gentechnik in der Landwirtschaft: Potenziale und Risiken," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 5-2024, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    8. Holst, Niels & Lang, Andreas & Lövei, Gabor & Otto, Mathias, 2013. "Increased mortality is predicted of Inachis io larvae caused by Bt-maize pollen in European farmland," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 126-133.
    9. Buttel, Frederick H. & Merrill, Jeanne & Chen, Lucy & Goldberger, Jessica & Hurley, Terrance M., 2005. "Bt Corn Farmer Compliance with Insect Resistance Management Requirements: Results from the 2002 Minnesota and Wisconsin Farm Polls," Staff Papers 13659, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    10. Artuso, A., 2003. "Risk perceptions, endogenous demand and regulation of agricultural biotechnology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 131-145, April.
    11. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    12. Mads Greaker & Yuyu Chen, 2006. "Can voluntary product-labeling replace trade bans in the case of GMOs?," Discussion Papers 485, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    13. Felloni, Fabrizio & Gilbert, John & Wahl, Thomas I. & Wandschneider, Philip, 2003. "Trade policy, biotechnology and grain self-sufficiency in China," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 173-186, May.
    14. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Claire Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 68, pages 11-45.
    15. Magdalena Pawełkowicz & Bartłomiej Zieniuk & Pawel Staszek & Arkadiusz Przybysz, 2024. "From Sequencing to Genome Editing in Cucurbitaceae: Application of Modern Genomic Techniques to Enhance Plant Traits," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-41, January.
    16. Finucane, Melissa L. & Holup, Joan L., 2005. "Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1603-1612, April.
    17. Pierre-Benoit, Joly & Claire, Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 68.
    18. H. Hu & M. Xie & Y. Yu & Q. Zhang, 2013. "Transgenic Bt cotton tissues have no apparent impact on soil microorganisms," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 59(8), pages 366-371.
    19. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Claire Marris, 2003. "Les Américains ont-ils accepté les OGM ? Analyse comparée de la construction des OGM comme problème public en France et aux Etats-Unis," Post-Print hal-01201044, HAL.
    20. Robert K. D. Peterson & Steven J. Meyer & Amy T. Wolf & Jeffrey D. Wolt & Paula M. Davis, 2006. "Genetically Engineered Plants, Endangered Species, and Risk: A Temporal and Spatial Exposure Assessment for Karner Blue Butterfly Larvae and Bt Maize Pollen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 845-858, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abk:jajeba:ajebasp.2009.206.212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jeffery Daniels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://thescipub.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.