Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- 13 The Risk Analysis Framework and Biosafety Policy
- 14 The Precautionary Principle as a Barrier to GMO Risk Analysis: Elicitation of Experts’ Viewpoints
- 15 How Do Socio-Political Disputes Concerning GMOs Influence Decision-Making in Developing Countries?
- 16 Biosafety Communication: Beyond Risk Communication
- 17 The Role of Mass Media and Lobbies in the Formulation of GMO Regulations
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
14 - The Precautionary Principle as a Barrier to GMO Risk Analysis: Elicitation of Experts’ Viewpoints
from Part III - Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2017
Book contents
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing Countries
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- 13 The Risk Analysis Framework and Biosafety Policy
- 14 The Precautionary Principle as a Barrier to GMO Risk Analysis: Elicitation of Experts’ Viewpoints
- 15 How Do Socio-Political Disputes Concerning GMOs Influence Decision-Making in Developing Countries?
- 16 Biosafety Communication: Beyond Risk Communication
- 17 The Role of Mass Media and Lobbies in the Formulation of GMO Regulations
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
Summary
GMOs remain controversial around the world partly due to the fragmented authoritarian framework set up for their risk analysis. To formally explore some of the challenges that are associated with the risk analysis, detailed interviews were conducted with 16 leading experts on politics, barriers and governance process of GMOs at the national and international levels. The results of the interviews revealed some of the barriers to GMO regulation and risk analysis. This chapter argues that the precautionary principle still remains a big barrier particularly in the way it has been interpreted or used by regulators and environmental activists to undermine the application of GMOs around the world particularly in developing countries. Competing interests among different organisations especially private sector and government agencies also make risk analysis procedures more complex as reflected in regulatory mechanisms and procedures adopted in different countries. The possible implications of current GMO policy on emerging technologies such as gene editing are discussed. Finally the chapter concludes with recommendations and suggests a possible way forward.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 162 - 174Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Abbott, A. (2015). Europe's genetically edited plants stuck in legal limbo. Nature 528, 319–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adenle, A. A. (2014). Stakeholders’ perceptions of GM technology in West Africa: assessing the responses of policymakers and scientists in Ghana and Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arts, B. and Mack, S. (2003). Environmental NGOs and the Biosafety Protocol: a case study on political influence. European Environment 13, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, R. and Dickson, B. (2005). Precautionary principle, precautionary practice: lessons and insights. In Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk, Uncertainty and Practice in Conservation and Sustainable Use, ed. Cooney, R. and Dickson, B.. London: Earthscan, Chapter 18.Google Scholar
Dubock, A. (2014). The politics of Golden Rice. GM Crops & Food 5, 210–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAO/WHO (2001). Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods. Report of a joint FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/WHO (World Health Organization) expert consultation on allergenicity of foods derived from biotechnology. [Online]. Available from ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/allergygm.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, S. and Gray, T. (2008). The World Trade Organization's report on the EU's moratorium on biotech products: the wisdom of the US challenge to the EU in the WTO. Global Environmental Politics 8(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NASEM (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. (2006). Precaution: principles and practice in Australian environmental and natural resource management. Productivity Commission. Presidential Address, 50th Annual Australian Agricultural and Resource Economic Society Conference, Manly, New South Wales.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potrykus, I. and Ammann, K. (2010). Proceedings of a Study Week of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. New Biotechnology 27(5), 445–717.Google Scholar
PRRI (2013). The French deal: GM technology traded off for nuclear energy. [Online]. Available from www.prri.net/french-deal-gmos/Google Scholar
UNDP (2001). The Human Development Report 2001. New York: Oxford University Press. [Online]. Available from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2001Google Scholar
WHO (2016). Micronutrient deficiencies. [Online]. Available from www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/Google Scholar
Wolt, J. D. et al. (2015). The regulatory status of genome edited crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal 14(2), 510–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by