Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T11:39:31.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - Who Is to Blame? Liability and Redress Related to GMOs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2009

Loretta Feris
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Law, Faculty of Law University of Pretoria
Michael I. Jeffery
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
Jeremy Firestone
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Karen Bubna-Litic
Affiliation:
University of Technology, Sydney
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Although scientists and farmers have for centuries engaged in plant manipulation and cross-breeding, it was not until the discovery of the DNA molecule in 1953 that a new mode of genetic manipulation was made possible. Agricultural biotechnology now utilizes recombinant DNA techniques to transfer genes between species and from one cell to another. As such, the resultant genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can draw from a more diverse gene pool and offer valuable phenotypes not available through conventional breeding. The so-called first generation GM crops, that is, those modified for resistance to insect pests, herbicides, and viruses, have mostly benefited producers of GMOs, whereas second-generation crops are in the process of development and they are more likely to benefit consumers.

The development of genetically modified foods has mushroomed since 1953. It is now estimated that the United States has 72 percent, Argentina 17 percent, and Canada 10 percent of its agricultural land planted with genetically modified crops. The technology of genetically modified organisms is still relatively new, however, and, as with any new technology, it carries some level of risk. Harm can occur in a number of circumstances from the cradle to the grave route of biotechnology and some risks such as safety and health hazards are as yet undetermined. Other risks have been clearly established. For example, approximately nine class action suits have been brought in the United States against the biotech company Aventis over the contamination of corn.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biodiversity Conservation, Law and Livelihoods: Bridging the North-South Divide
IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Research Studies
, pp. 485 - 499
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×