Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biosafety Act 2007: Does It Really Protect Bioethical Issues Relating To GMOS

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the (serious) global concerns about the safety and genetic stability of genetically modified organisms, the Malaysian National Biosafety Board (NBB) has recently approved the field testing for genetically modified (GM) male mosquitoes. With this development, bioethical issues, which in some respect could adversely impinge on the social, economic and environmental aspects of the society, have surfaced, and these concerns must be addressed by the authorities concerned. In reviewing this application, the National Biosafety Board has followed the requirements of the Biosafety Act 2007, which was created to strike a balance between promoting biotechnology and at the same time protecting against its potential environmental and human health risks in Malaysia. However, the 2007 Act fails to adequately take into account any bioethical issues in spite of the inclusion of a provision on socio-economic consideration. As part of an ongoing doctoral research project, and by way of an instrumental critique of the 2007 Act, the present paper attempts to address the role and function of the Malaysia biosafety legal framework in governing bioethical concerns relating to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) within the current biotechnology background in Malaysia. Additionally, the paper suggests that the ambiguity of the provisions contained within the 2007 Act in governing such concerns, representing wider societal interests and welfare, in some ways might defeat the balancing role that this act was originally intended to fulfil.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ethical principle of non-maleficence, or do no harm, would make public reasonably cautious about premature use of a technology when the risks are not understood. Recently some have advocated a total precautionary principle for genetic engineering, which would mean that no technology with more than 0 % risk should ever be attempted. However, to totally ban this technology, would means we hinder development and economy of the country. So what is needed is to strike a balance between biotechnology and bioethical consideration.

  2. The public should have the freedom of information. Article 10 of the Federal Constitution (Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association) does not mention anything about freedom of information, but under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948,(http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” According to Section 4(4) of the Suhakam Act-Act 597, the UDHR is applicable to Malaysia as long as it does not contravene the Federal Constitution. It is submitted that freedom to information does not contravene the Federal Constitution. In fact, it may be argued that for freedom of expression (as stated in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution) to be truly practiced, then freedom of information is a necessary element. Therefore, Article 19 of UDHR should applicable in Malaysia.

  3. The National Biotechnology Policy aims to develop biotechnology to become a new economic engine for Malaysia which eill enhancing the nation’s prosperity and well-being. The Policy addresses vital aspects of biotechnology development such as the priority areas, legal, safety, financial and others issues. The policy spells out nine thrusts, which include transforming and enhancing the value creation of the agricultural sector through biotechnology. See Biotechcorp homepage. (2010) http://www.biotechcorp.com.my/Pages/NationalBiotechnologyPolicy.aspx?AudienceId=1. Accessed on 16 Nov 2009.

  4. Malaysia uses LMOs instead of GMOs. However Malaysia has made a declaration in the Convention of Biodiversity 1994 that the former term gives meaning to the latter.

  5. See Preamble, Biosafety Act 2007.

  6. See Section 15, Biosafety Act 2007 (Act 678).

  7. Department of Biosafety is under the purview of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE).

  8. One of the conditions of the approval, which has to be fulfilled before the start of the field releases, is that of public notification and consensus. The terms and conditions for the certificate of approval state that: “It is mandatory that the applicant through a public forum obtains prior consensus and approval for the inhabitants in the release sites regarding the proposed MRR [mark-release-recapture] field trial”. See Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE). (2010a). Convention on Biological Diversity. Malaysia Biosafety Clearing House. http://www.biosafety.nre.gov.my. Accessed on 12 December 2011.

References

  • Adcock, M. (2007). Intellectual property, genetically modified crops and bioethics. Biotechnology Journal, 2(9), 1088–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biosafety Act 2007 (Act 678).

  • Biosafety Clearing House (BCH) (2009). The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. Biosafety clearing house. http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/. Accessed on 16 Nov 2009.

  • Biotechcrop homepage (2010). http://www.biotechcorp.com.my/Pages/NationalBiotechnologyPolicy.aspx?AudienceId=1. Accessed on 16 Nov 2009.

  • Claire, A.F. (1998). Modern biotechnology: A review of current regulatory status and identification of research and regulatory needs. Sage Journals Online. http://online.sagepub.com/search/results. Accessed on 3 Jan 2010.

  • Consumer Association of Penang (CAP). (2010). GM mosquitoes-government is liable. http://www.consumer.org.my/development/environment/515-gm-mosquitoes-government-is-liable. Accessed on 4 Nov 2010.Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (39 ILM 1027 (Cartagena Protocol)).

  • Falck-Zepeda, J. B. (2009). Socio-economic considerations, Article 26.1 of the Cartagena protocol on biosafety: What are the issues and what is at stake? The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 12(1), 90–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaditi, E.A. (2009). Biosafety from an EU perspective. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). http://www.transatlantic.be/publications/kaditi_final.pdf. Accessed on 16 Nov 2009.

  • Macer, D.R.J. (1998). Bioethics is love of life. Christchurch,New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute in Bhardwaj, M. (2006). Looking Back, Looking Beyond: Revisiting The Ethics Of Genome Generation. Journal of Biosciences, 31(1), 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macer, D. R. J. (2005). Ethical, legal and social issues of genetically modifying insect vectors for public health. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 35, 649–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macer, D.R.J. (2007). Ethical Aspects in introducing genetically modified organisms for public health purposes. http://www.eubios.info/Papers/Vibs186DM.pdf. Accessed on 5 Feb 2012.

  • Macer, D.R.J.(2007). Ethical Aspects In Introducing Genetically Modified Organisms For Public Health Purposes In: H., Matti, T., Tuija, & H.-K., Peter (eds.), Ethics in biomedical research: international perspectives. Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, pp. 69–85. At http://www.eubios.info/Papers/Vibs186DM.pdf. Accessed on 6 June 2012.

  • Mackenzie, R., et al. (2003). Explanatory guide to cartagena protocol on biosafety. IUCN The world conservation union (pp. 32–33). UK: IUCN in collaboration with FIELD and WRI.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE). (2008). The biosafety act of malaysia: dispelling the myths. Malaysia: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE). (2010a). Question and answer session with the media on the release of transgenic mosquitoes. Convention on biological diversity. Malaysia biosafety clearing house. http://www.biosafety.nre.gov.my/country_decision/field_trial/aedes_aegypti/question%20and%20answer%20session.pdf. Accessed on 5 Feb 2011.

  • Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE) (2010b). Rumusan Isu-Isu dari Konsultasi Awam. http://www.biosafety.nre.gov.my/consultation/Isu-Isu Konsultasi Awam v2.pdf. Accessed on 23 Dec 2010.

  • Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE) (2010c). National biosafety board issues first certificate of approval for field trial of GM mosquitoes. Press Statement. http://www.nre.gov.my/EN/Pengumuman/Pages/PressStatementNationalBiosafetyBoardIssuesFirstCertificateOfApprovalForFieldTrialOfGmMosquitoes.aspx. Assessed on 16 Oct 2010.

  • Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE) (2010d). National biosafety board decision, application for approval for limited mark-release recapture of Aedes aegypti WILD TYPE AND Aedes aegypti GENETICALLY MODIFIED MOSQUITOES OX513A(My1). Convention on Biological Diversity. Malaysia Biosafety Clearing House. http://www.biosafety.nre.gov.my/country_decision/field_trial/aedes_aegypti/nbb%20decision%20(eng).pdf. Accessed on 6 June 2012.

  • Nijar, (2007). Genetic engineering, biosafety and bioethics: Striking a balance in regulatory frameworks: A developing country view. In A. S. Gunn, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the seminar on bioethics-meeting the challenges 2007. Malaysia: Centre for Civilisational Dialogue, University of Malaya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology (GenØk). (2012). The professional field of gene ecology. http://www.genok.org. Accessed on 6 June 2012.

  • Pray, C. E., Ramaswami, B., Huang, J. K., Hu, R. F., Bengali, P., & Zhang, H. Z. (2006). Costs and enforcement of biosafety regulations in India and China. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 2(1/2), 137–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhakam Act (Act 597).

  • Syllabus Monsanto Co. et al. v. Geertson Seed Farmset et al. (561 U. S. ____ (2010)). Supreme Court of the United States. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No. 09-475. Argued April 27, 2010. Decided June 21, 2010.

  • Third World Network (TWN) (2010). TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Dec 10/01): Serious concerns raised by Malaysia’s planned release of GM mosquitoes. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/health.info/2010/health20101201.htm. Accessed on 5 Feb 2012.

  • Traavik, T. (2007). Bioethics in the domestic legislation. In T. Traavik & L. C. Lim (Eds.), Biosafety first. Holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms. Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948.

  • Wallace, H. (2011). GeneWatch UK comments on Risk Assessment report of the Malaysian Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) for an application to conduct a limited Mark-Release-Recapture of Aedes aegypti (L.) wild type and OX513A strains. http://bch.cbd.int/database/record-v4.shtml?documentid=101480 Accessed 28 Dec 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the University of Malaya, Malaysia for all the supports and co-operation given.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

    Siti Hafsyah Idris

  2. Centre for Civilisational Dialogue, University of Malaya, 2nd Floor, Siswarama Building, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Lee Wei Chang & Azizan Baharuddin

  3. Department of Science & Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Lee Wei Chang & Azizan Baharuddin

Authors
  1. Siti Hafsyah Idris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lee Wei Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Azizan Baharuddin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lee Wei Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Idris, S.H., Chang, L.W. & Baharuddin, A. Biosafety Act 2007: Does It Really Protect Bioethical Issues Relating To GMOS. J Agric Environ Ethics 26, 747–757 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9413-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9413-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation