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
- 2 Recent Scientific Developments in Genetic Technologies: Implications for Future Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 3 A Strategy for Integrating Science into Regulatory Decision-Making for GMOs
- 4 Governance of Benefits and Risks of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 5 The Canadian Experience with the Creation and Implementation of Regulatory Frameworks for the Environmental Release of GM Crops as a Model for Developing Countries
- 6 Labelling of Food from GMOs: Options to Consider by Developing Countries
- 7 Building Human Capacity and Skills in Biosafety: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
6 - Labelling of Food from GMOs: Options to Consider by Developing Countries
from Part I - Risk Analysis Methodology and Decision-Making
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
- 2 Recent Scientific Developments in Genetic Technologies: Implications for Future Regulation of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 3 A Strategy for Integrating Science into Regulatory Decision-Making for GMOs
- 4 Governance of Benefits and Risks of GMOs in Developing Countries
- 5 The Canadian Experience with the Creation and Implementation of Regulatory Frameworks for the Environmental Release of GM Crops as a Model for Developing Countries
- 6 Labelling of Food from GMOs: Options to Consider by Developing Countries
- 7 Building Human Capacity and Skills in Biosafety: Lessons Learned and Emerging Best Practices
- Part II Diversification of Expertise
- Part III Risk-Analysis-Based Regulatory Systems
- Part IV Case Studies from Developing Countries
- Index
- References
Summary
When considering the options for labelling of GM food, consumers' rights are critical. One of the rights, namely, safety of GM food is addressed by the extensive requirements from governments to ensure food safety. Two more rights remain to be answered; to have information and to be able to choose between GM food and non-GM food. This chapter deals with a plethora of labelling regimes, out of which Codex Alimentarius could not achieve harmonisation. The many factors that impact on GM labelling regimes are reviewed and discussed, such as global trade, markets, and consumer literacy and awareness. Labelling of GM-food will not necessarily meet the consumers' need for choice and information on a very technical subject such as biotechnology. One of the most serious impacts of GM labelling could be the cost implications to consumers and governments. The probable increase in cost of food is a major concern for developing countries as it could affect the consumers' right to satisfaction of a basic need which is to have food. This chapter makes a number of recommendations for GM labelling in developing countries.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetically Modified Organisms in Developing CountriesRisk Analysis and Governance, pp. 64 - 74Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Adenle, A. A. et al. (2013). Status of development, regulation and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: views and positions of stakeholder groups. Food Policy 43, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
African Union (2014). African Union Model Law on Biosafety, Art. 14: Identification and Labelling. Addis Ababa: African Union Commission, Department of Human Resources, Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Bansal, S. and Gruère, G. P. (2012). Implication of mandatory labelling of GM food in India. Evidence from the supply side. Food Policy 37(4), 467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansal, S. and Gruère, G. P. (2015). Labelling GM food in India: anticipating the effects of GM-brinjal and rice marketing chains. AgBioForum 18(2), 156–167.Google Scholar
Bouet, A. et al. (2010). From ‘may contain’ to ‘does contain’: the price and trade effects of strict information requirements for GM maize under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2010 AAEA, CAES & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, 25–27 July, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Branquinho, M. R. et al. (2010). Survey of compliance with labelling legislation in food containing GMOs in Brazil. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 23(3), 220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C. A. and Gruère, G. P. (2003). Mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods: does it really provide consumer choice? AgBioForum 6(1&2), 68–70.Google Scholar
Carter, C. A. et al. (2012). California's Proposition 37: effects of mandatory labeling of GM food. ARE Update 15(6), 3–8 (University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics).Google Scholar
CAC (2011). Codex Alimentarius Commission compilation of Codex texts relevant to labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology, CAC/GL 76–2011. [Online]. Available from www.codexalimentarius.org/standards/list-of-standards/en/Google Scholar
Chimhundu, H. (2002). Language Policies in Africa. Final report of the Intergovernmental Conference on Language Policies in Africa, revised version. UNESCO.Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. [Online]. Available from www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
De Leon, A. et al. (2004). The cost implications of GM food labelling in the Philippines. Crop Biotech Brief 4, 2. [Online]. Available from www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/briefs/Brief4-2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dubock, A. (2014). The politics of Golden Rice. GM Crops & Food 5(3), 210–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EC-JRC (2015). New guidelines to enhance GMO testing across the European Union. [Online]. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/new-guidelines-gmo-testing?searchGoogle Scholar
Falck-Zepeda, J. B. (2006). Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety: implication for developing countries. American Journal of Agriculture Economics 88(5), 1200–1208.Google Scholar
Gallani, B. (2015). Labelling of genetically modified (GM) ingredients in foods and beverages. In Advances in Food and Beverages Labelling: Information and Regulations, ed. Berryman, P.. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 177–189.Google Scholar
Glowka, L. (2003). Law and Modern Biotechnology: Selected Issues of Relevance to Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p. 44.Google Scholar
GMO-Compass (2007). Labelling of foodstuffs produced from animals – the discussion continues. [Online]. Available from www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/286.gmo_labelling_animal_products_discussion_continues.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gruère, G. P. et al. (2009). Explaining international differences in genetically modified food labelling policies. Review of International Economics 17(3), 393–408.Google Scholar
Gruère, G. P. and Rao, S. R. (2007). A review of international labelling policies of genetically modified food to evaluate India's proposed rule. AgBioForum 10(1), 51–64.Google Scholar
Huffman, W. E. and McCluskey, J. J. (2014). The economics of labelling of GM foods. AgBioForum 17(2), 156–160.Google Scholar
Jaftha, J. (2014). Guidelines on the role and functions of a biosafety committee (NBC) within a regulatory system – a case study from South Africa. In Biosafety in Africa: Experiences and Best Practices, ed. Keetch, D. P. et al. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.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
Kenya (2012). The Biosafety Act (No. 2 of 2009), The Biosafety (Labelling) Regulations, 2012, Arrangements of Legislation, Legal Notice No. 40. [Online]. Available from www.biosafetykenya.go.ke/Docs/labelling.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kimani, V. and Gruère, G. (2010). Implication of import regulations and information requirements under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for GM commodities in Kenya. AgBioForum 13(3), 222–241.Google Scholar
Mann, S. (2015). Is ‘GMO free’ an additional ‘organic’? On the economics of chain segregation. AgBioForum 18(1), 26–33.Google Scholar
Miller, H. I. and Kershen, D. I. (2011). A label we don't need. Nature Biotechnology 29(11), 971–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, E. J. (2014). Biosafety regulatory systems in Africa. In Biosafety in Africa: Experiences and Best Practices, ed. Keetch, D. P. et al. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
OECD (1992). OECD Principles on Good Laboratory Practice, revised. [Online]. Available from www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/goodlaboratorypracticeglp.htmGoogle Scholar
Oh, J. and Ezezika, O. C. (2014). To label or not to label: balancing the risks, benefits and costs of mandatory labelling of GM food in Africa. Agricultural and Food Security 3(8), 1–8.Google Scholar
Petrillo, M. et al. (2015). JRC GMO-Amplicons: a collection of nucleic acid sequences related to genetically modified organisms. [Online]. Available from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589694/Google Scholar
Plastina, A. and Giannakas, K. (2007). Market and welfare effects of GMO introduction in small open economies. AgBioForum 10(2), 104–123.Google Scholar
South Africa (2004). Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (Act No. 54 of 1972). Regulations relating to labelling of foodstuffs obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification, Government Gazette No. 25,908, 16 January 2004.Google Scholar
South Africa (2011). Consumer Protection Act (Act No. 68 of 2008). Government Gazette 32186 (2009); 526; Regulations (R293, 1 April 2011), Government Gazette 34180 (2011); 550. [Online]. Available from www.thedti.gov.za/business_regulation/acts/consumer_protection.PDFGoogle Scholar
Trapman, S. M. et al. (2009). Guidance document on measurement uncertainty for GMO testing laboratories. European Commission Joint Research Centre. [Online]. Available from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC50052/101-2009_as%20published.pdfGoogle Scholar
UN (2003). United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. [Online]. Available from http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/UN-DESA_GCP1999_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
UNCTAD (2013). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection. [Online]. Available from http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/CompetitionLaw/UN-Guidelines-on-Consumer-Protection.aspxGoogle Scholar
Varacca, A. et al. (2014). Economic aspects of segregation between GM and non-GM crops in Italy. AgBioForum 17(2), 123–132.Google Scholar
WTO (1995a). World Trade Organization, Uruguay Round Agreement: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. [Online]. Available from www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htmGoogle Scholar
WTO (1995b). World Trade Organization, Uruguay Round Agreement: Agreement on the Application of Technical Barriers to Trade. [Online]. Available from www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htmGoogle Scholar
WTO (2011). The WTO and the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. [Online]. Available from www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/coher_e/wto_codex_e.htmGoogle Scholar