Skip to main content

Tunisia—The Use of Modern Biotechnology in Tunisia – Regulatory Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
GMOs

Abstract

Regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) started in the 1990s in the United States, and European Union (EU) adopted two different approaches for GMO regulations: one based on the “substantial equivalence” and the other on the “precautionary approach” and the “right to know” of the consumer. Other countries developed their regulations in between these two concepts. However, despite the underlying opposite approaches, both countries recognized some common aspects in GMO regulation that cover different aspects of the cultivation and commercialization of GM crops, such as approval, risk assessment, labeling, traceability, and coexistence; but also aspects related to the development of new GM crops, such as rules for laboratory and field trials and intellectual property rights (IPR) protection (Vigani and Olper, AgBioforum 18:44–54, 2015). Regulation of biotechnology and GMO has a direct effect on trade and market (Gruère, An analysis of trade related international regulations of genetically modified food and their effects on developing countries, EPT discussion paper 147. International Food Policy Research Institute, Environment and Production Technology Division (EPT), Washington, DC, 2006; Gruère et al., Rev Int Econ 17:393–408, 2009; Vigani and Olper, Food Policy 43:32–43, 2013, AgBioforum 18:44–54, 2015). Despite the efforts of the Codex Alimentarius and of the Biosafety Protocol in searching for international agreement on labeling and rules for the trans-border movements of GMOs, to date there is no consistent and harmonized set of rules to regulate GMOs. This is partially due to the different food security strategy in developing and developed countries (Vigani and Olper, AgBioforum 18:44–54, 2015). Hence the “wait and see” attitudes of most developing countries, including Middle East and North African (MENA) countries, which fear that the implementation of any particular regulations may have a direct effect on their current and future agricultural exports to countries with stringent regulations (Zarrilli, International trade in GMOs and GM products: National and multilateral legal frameworks, Policy issues in international trade and commodities study series, 29. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York/Geneva, 2005).

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Actually “United Nations Environment.

References

  • Ahmed HF, Chahed Y (2012) USDA, gain REPORT number TS1205. Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. http://www.agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/MarketReport/Reports/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Tunis_Tunisia_7-2-2012.pdf

  • Ben Belgacem H, Chalghoumi R, Jaballah (2018) Experiences and lessons learned from Tunisia. Biosafety . Protocol Newsletter 13:18–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Biosafety Clearing House (2019) http://bch.cbd.int/about/countryprofile.shtml?country=tn)-

  • Chaouachi M, Nabi N, Ben Hafsa A et al (2013) Monitoring of genetically modified food and feed in the Tunisian market using qualitative and quantitative real-time PCR. Food Sci Biotechnol 22:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen AT, Andersen MM, Kappel K (2019) Are current EU policies on GMOs justified? Transgenic Res 28:267–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (2019) http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13172

  • Eckerstorfer MF, Engelhard M, Heissenberger A et al (2019) Plants developed by new genetic modification techniques-comparison of existing regulatory frameworks in the EU and Non-EU countries. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 19:7–26

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consultations/public_consultations/scenihr_consultation_21_en

  • FAO (2003) Biosecurity1 in Food and Agriculture. Committee on agriculture. 17th session. Rome, 31 March–4 April 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Feki K, Quintero FJ, Khoudi H et al (2013) A constitutively active form of a durum wheat Na+/H+ antiporter SOS1 confers high salt tolerance to transgenic Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Rep 33:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gargouri-Bouzid R, Jaoua L, Rouis S et al (2006) PVY-resistant transgenic potato plants expressing an anti-NIa protein scFv antibody. Mol Biotechnol 33:133–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gouiaa S, Khoudi H, Leidi EO et al (2012) Expression of wheat Na(+)/H(+) antiporter TNHXS1 and H(+)- pyrophosphatase TVP1 genes in tobacco from a bicistronic transcriptional unit improves salt tolerance. Plant Mol Biol 79:137–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gruère GP (2006) An analysis of trade related international regulations of genetically modified food and their effects on developing countries, EPT discussion paper 147. International Food Policy Research Institute, Environment and Production Technology Division (EPT), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruère GP, Carter CA, Farzin YH (2009) Explaining international differences in genetically modified food labeling regulations. Rev Int Econ 17:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA): http://www.isaaa.org/

  • Nabi N, Chaouachi M, Zellama MS et al (2016) A new QRT-PCR assay designed for the differentiation between elements provided from Agrobacterium sp. in GMOs plant events and natural Agrobacterium sp. bacteria. Food Chem 196:58–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NIH (2019). http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/Guidelines/NIH_Guidelines.htm

  • Trump BD (2017) Synthetic biology regulation and governance: lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore Health Policy, vol 121, pp 1139–1146

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigani M, Olper A (2013) GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy 43:32–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigani M, Olper A (2015) Patterns and determinants of GMO regulations: an overview of recent evidence. AgBioforum 18:44–54

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2006) WHO biorisk management: laboratory biosecurity guidance, 2006, WHO/CDS/EPR/20066

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarrilli S (2005) International trade in GMOs and GM products: National and multilateral legal frameworks, Policy issues in international trade and commodities study series, 29. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York/Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chaouachi, M. et al. (2020). Tunisia—The Use of Modern Biotechnology in Tunisia – Regulatory Framework. In: Chaurasia, A., Hawksworth, D.L., Pessoa de Miranda, M. (eds) GMOs. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53183-6_25

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics