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
25 - Conclusions and Recommendations
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
The concluding chapter starts by contextualizing the GMO debate within the context of the need for sustainable agricultural intensification and the challenge of meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. It discusses some of the key messages that arise from the preceding chapters. These include the fact that genetically improved crops that are locally important for developing countries have not yet been successful in reaching the market place, in considerable measure due to strict risk-averse legislation founded on the Precautionary Principle on which the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is based. While there is excessive focus on risk, the benefits of the technology are generally not being considered by regulators, and are not being adequately communicated to the public. The situation is not helped by the focus on process-based legislation (focusing on the genetic modification) rather than on the nature of the resulting product. Developing countries continue to need appropriately focused capacity development to enable them to adequately deal with these issues.The chapter concludes with a set of recommendations for scientists, government officials, donors, the media and international bodies, which we believe would help to break the current impasse in the introduction of GMOs.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 294 - 300Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
African Union (2014). Malabo declaration on accelerated agricultural growth and transformation for shared prosperity and improved livelihoods. [Online]. Addis Ababa: African Union. Available from http://pages.au.int/sites/default/files/Malabo%20Declaration%202014_11%2026-.pdfGoogle Scholar
Alexandros, N. and Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. FAO Agriculture Development Economics Division. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03.Google Scholar
Brookes, G. and Barfoot, P. (2016). GM Crops: Global Socio-economic and Environmental Impacts 1996–2014. Dorchester: PG Economics Ltd.Google Scholar
Carroll, D et al. (2016). Regulate genome-edited products, not genome editing itself. Nature Biotechnology 34, 477–479.Google Scholar
Grassini, P. et al. (2013). Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus in historical crop production trends. Nature Communications 4, 2918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huesing, J. E. et al. (2016). Global adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops: challenges for the public sector. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 64(2), 394–402.Google Scholar
Jansen van Rijssen, F. W. et al. (2015). The precautionary principle: making managerial decisions on GMOs is difficult. South African Journal of Science 111(3–4), 1–9.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2007). The precautionary principle should not be taken as a basis for decision-making: talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO Reports 8(4), 305–308.Google Scholar
Schiek, B. et al. (2016). Demystification of GM crop costs: releasing late blight resistant potato varieties as public goods in developing countries. International Journal of Biotechnology 14(2), 112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, S. H. and Sax, J. K. (2016). Ending event-based regulation of GMO crops. Nature Biotechnology 34, 474–477.Google Scholar
The Montpellier Panel (2013). Sustainable Intensification: A New Paradigm for African Agriculture, London. [Online]. Available from www.ag4impact.org/publications/montpellier-panel-report2013/Google Scholar
Thomson, J. A. T. (2016). An African perspective: new biosciences making African agriculture more productive and resilient. In Creating Sustainable Bioeconomies: The Bioscience Revolution in Europe and Africa, ed. Virgin, I. and Morris, E. J.. London: Routledge, pp. 51–61.Google Scholar
United Nations (2015). World population prospects, the 2015 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. [Online]. Available from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Google Scholar
US National Academies (2016). Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. [Online]. Available from www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospectsGoogle Scholar
US Senate (2016). Bill S.764 to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods, and for other purposes. [Online]. Available from www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ag%20biotech%20compromise%20proposal.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Hunger Education Service (2015). 2015 World hunger and poverty facts and statistics. [Online]. Available from www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/Google Scholar