Advertisement

Introduction to Socio-Economic Considerations in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms

  • Karinne Ludlow
  • Stuart J. Smyth
  • José Falck-Zepeda
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 37)

Abstract

Just over 20 years ago, an innovation occurred in agriculture-one with global implications. From this modest beginning, agricultural biotechnology and GM crops have become nothing short of the most rapidly, and widely, adopted innovation in the history of commodity agriculture. This book aims to provide an overview of socio-economic considerations (SEC) assessment in biotechnology regulation as a resource for policy makers and other interested stakeholders concerned with the development of best practice, methods and policy guidelines for SEC evaluation implementation and inclusion in decision making. This chapter sets the scene for the remainder of the chapters.

Keywords

Genetically Modify World Trade Organization Genetically Modify Crop Agricultural Biotechnology World Trade Organization Dispute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. UNEP/CBD/BS/WS-SEC/1/3 (18 October 2011) Synthesis of information on national experiences with socio-economic considerations in decision-making on living modified organismsGoogle Scholar
  2. UNEP/CBD/BS/COP-MOP/5/INF/10 (17 September 2010) Summary Report on the Survey on the Application of and Experience in the Use of Socio-Economic Considerations in Decision-Making on Living Modified OrganismsGoogle Scholar
  3. Brookes G (2009) Socio-economic impacts of GM crop technology: ‘second round’ impacts. Briefing note, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. COGEM (2009) Socio-economic aspects of GMOs. Building Blocks for an EU Sustainability Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops. COGEM Report CGM/090929-01. http://www.cogem.net/main-adviesdetail-signaleringEN.aspx?pageid=54&loc=2&version=&mode=&id=517. Accessed 7 June 2013
  5. Ebbels DL (2003) Principles of plant health and quarantine. CABI Publishing http://www.corpoica.org.co/SitioWeb/WebBac/Documentos/Principlesofplanthealthandquarantine.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2013
  6. European Commission, COM (2011) Final Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation on the basis of Member States contributions, as requested by the Conclusions of the Environmental Council of Dec 2008Google Scholar
  7. Falck Zepeda JB (2009) Socio-economic considerations, Article 26.1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: what are the issues and what is at stake? AgBioForum 12(1):90–107. http://agbioforum.org/v12n1/v12n1a09-falckzepeda.htm. Accessed 7 June 2013Google Scholar
  8. Falck Zepeda J, Wesseler J, Smyth S (2010) The current status of the debate on socio-economic assessments and biosafety highlighting different positions and policies in Canada and the US, the EU and Developing Countries. Paper presented at World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economics (WCERE), Montreal, Canada, 29 JuneGoogle Scholar
  9. Fransen L, La Vina A, Dayrit F et al (2005) Integrating socio-economic considerations into biosafety decisions: the role of public participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Hope J (2001) New Zealand Royal Commission on genetic modification. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 18(5):441–444Google Scholar
  11. IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) (2012) Sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (COP/MOP 6). Earth Negotiations Bulletin 1–5 October, http://www/iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb09585e.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2012Google Scholar
  12. Jaffe G (2005) Implementing the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol through national biosafety regulatory systems: an analysis of key unresolved issues. J Publ Aff 5:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. James C (2010) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief No 42. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. James C, Krattiger AF (1996) Global review of the field testing and commercialization of transgenic plants, 1986–1995: the first decade of crop biotechnology. ISAAA Brief 1. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithica, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Jarvis A (2009) A way forward for GMO cultivation in Europe? Chatham House Programme Paper, NovGoogle Scholar
  16. La Vina A, Fransen L (2004) Integrating socio-economic considerations into biosafety decisions: the challenge for Asia. Paper for IUCN-IDRC Meeting on Biosafety, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  17. Moses LB (2007) Recurring dilemmas: the law’s race to keep up with technological change. U Ill JL Tech & Policy 7:239–285Google Scholar
  18. New Zealand ERMA (1999) Technical Guide Identifying Risks for applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (ER-TG-01-1 9/99)Google Scholar
  19. New Zealand ERMA (2009) Decision making. A technical guide to identifying, assessing and evaluating risks, costs and benefits. ER-TG-05-02 03/09Google Scholar
  20. Schefer KN (2010) Social regulation in the WTO. Trade policy and international legal development. Edward Elgar, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Smyth S, Falck-Zepeda J (2012) Socio-economic considerations and international trade agreements. International Political Science Association Conference, Madrid, Spain, 8–12 JulyGoogle Scholar
  22. Third World Network (2008) Assessing the socio-economic, cultural and ethical impacts of GMOs. Third World Network Briefings for MOP 4#3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karinne Ludlow
    • 1
  • Stuart J. Smyth
    • 2
  • José Falck-Zepeda
    • 3
  1. 1.Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  3. 3.International Food Policy Research InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations