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
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- 18 Risk Regulation of Agricultural GMOs in China: Challenges and Prospects
- 19 Commercial Use and Governance of Bt cotton in China
- 20 The Regulatory Regime for Genetically Modified Crops in India
- 21 The Argentinian GMO Biosafety System: An Evolving Perspective
- 22 The Brazilian GMO Regulatory System: A Historical View and Perspective
- 23 An Effective Regulatory Regime Supported by Research and Development Is Key to Adoption of GM Technology in West Africa: Burkina Faso and Nigeria as Case Studies
- 24 A Pathway for Biosafety Regulation of GMOs in Sub-Saharan Africa
- 25 Conclusions and Recommendations
- Index
- References
22 - The Brazilian GMO Regulatory System: A Historical View and Perspective
from Part IV - Case Studies from Developing Countries
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
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- 18 Risk Regulation of Agricultural GMOs in China: Challenges and Prospects
- 19 Commercial Use and Governance of Bt cotton in China
- 20 The Regulatory Regime for Genetically Modified Crops in India
- 21 The Argentinian GMO Biosafety System: An Evolving Perspective
- 22 The Brazilian GMO Regulatory System: A Historical View and Perspective
- 23 An Effective Regulatory Regime Supported by Research and Development Is Key to Adoption of GM Technology in West Africa: Burkina Faso and Nigeria as Case Studies
- 24 A Pathway for Biosafety Regulation of GMOs in Sub-Saharan Africa
- 25 Conclusions and Recommendations
- Index
- References
Summary
In Brazil, the biosafety regulatory system was first established in 1995. However, adoption of GM crops was not immediate. Conflicts with environmental laws raised concerns related to GM crops, leading to a confusing scenario which delayed the introduction of new technologies for research, use and commercialization of GM crops in the country. A new biosafety law was launched in 2005. Its highest achievement was to reinforce the responsibilities of CTNBio - The National Technical Commission on Biosafety - that aimed to provide the federal government with technical advisory support on the implementation of biosafety policies related to protection of human health, living organisms, and the environment. The commission has full responsibility for technical safety assessment and approval of GMO use for research and commercial release. After technical evaluation, a GMO must be submitted to other regulatory organs in order to gain access to the market. Although occasional acts against technology still occur, the acceptance of and confidence in biotechnology is evidenced by the fact that since 2015 Brazil has been considered the second largest grower of GM crops in the world.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 258 - 270Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
ABDI and CGEE (2009). Panorama da biotecnologia. Brasília: Agência Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial (ABDI) and Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos (CGEE), 170 pp. [Online]. Available from www.abdi.com.br/Estudo/Panorama%20Setorial%20Biotecnologia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Andrade, P. P. et al. (2016). Use of transgenic Aedes aegypti in Brazil: risk perception and assessment. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 94, 766–771.Google Scholar
Bertolini, L. R. et al. (2016). The transgenic animal platform for biopharmaceutical production. Transgenic Research 25, 329–343.Google Scholar
Capalbo, D. M. F. et al. (2015). A study of stakeholder views to shape a communication strategy for GMO in Brazil. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 3, 179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CBD (2012). Guidance on risk assessment of living modified organisms, 64 pp. [Online]. Available from www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/bs/mop-06/official/mop-06-13-add1-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Céleres (2016). 2° levantamento da biotecnologia agrícola no Brasil, safra 2015/16. [Online]. Available from www.celeres.com.br/2o-levantamento-de-adocao-da-biotecnologia-agricola-no-brasil-safra-201516/Google Scholar
CGEE (2015). Percepção pública da ciência e tecnologia 2015 – Ciência e tecnologia no olhar dos brasileiros. Sumário executivo. Brasília: Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos. [Online]. Available from www.cgee.org.brGoogle Scholar
Conko, G. et al. (2016). A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nature Biotechnology 34(5), 493–503.Google Scholar
Furnival, A. C. and Pinheiro, S. M. (2009). O público e a compreensão dos rótulos de alimentos: o caso dos transgênicos. Revista Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação (Campinas) 7(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
IBGE (2016). Projeções e estimativas da população do Brasil e das Unidades da Federação. [Online]. Available from www.ibge.gov.brGoogle Scholar
James, C. (2015). Global Commercialization of Biotech/GM Crops: 2015. ISAAA Brief 2015.Google Scholar
Lopes, M. A. (2016). Biotechnologies in action in Brazil. In FAO International Symposium on The Role of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Sustainable Food Systems and Nutrition, pp. 12–13. [Online]. Available from www.fao.org/3/a-bc562e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mendonça-Hagler, L. et al. (2008). Trends in biotechnology and biosafety in Brazil. Environmental Biosafety Research 7(3), 115–121.Google Scholar
Momagri (2012). Agriculture, a strategic sector for Brasil's economy. [Online]. Available from www.momagri.orgGoogle Scholar
Phillips McDougall (2011). The cost and time involved in the discovery, development and authorisation of a new plant biotechnology derived trait. A Consultancy Study for Crop Life International, 24 pp. [Online]. Available from https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Getting-a-Biotech-Crop-to-Market-Phillips-McDougall-Study.pdfGoogle Scholar
Porth, I. and El-Kassaby, Y. A. (2014). Current status of the development of genetically modified (GM) forest trees worldwide: a comparison with the development of other GM plants in agriculture. CAB Reviews 9(8), 12.Google Scholar
Rampelotto, P. H. (2016). The Brazilian life science industry: advances and challenges. Industrial Biotechnology 12(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
Righetti, S. (2010). Ceará fará leite com proteína humana. Jornal Folha de São Paulo 28 August 2010. [Online]. Available from www.recodisa.ufc.br/news/Ceara-fara-leite-com-proteina-humana.phpGoogle Scholar
Soares, E. (2014). Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: Brazil. Law Library of Congress, USA. [Online]. Available from www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/brazil.phpGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by