Advertisement

GMOs pp 501-511 | Cite as

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

Chapter
  • 253 Downloads
Part of the Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation book series (TOBC, volume 19)

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).

Keywords

Tunisia Biotechnology Biosafety GMO Synthetic biology Regulation Cartagena protocol 

References

  1. 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
  2. Ben Belgacem H, Chalghoumi R, Jaballah (2018) Experiences and lessons learned from Tunisia. Biosafety. Protocol Newsletter 13:18–19Google Scholar
  3. 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 22:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christiansen AT, Andersen MM, Kappel K (2019) Are current EU policies on GMOs justified? Transgenic Res 28:267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Convention on Biological Diversity (2019) http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13172
  6. 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 19:7–26Google Scholar
  7. FAO (2003) Biosecurity1 in Food and Agriculture. Committee on agriculture. 17th session. Rome, 31 March–4 April 2003Google Scholar
  8. 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 33:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gargouri-Bouzid R, Jaoua L, Rouis S et al (2006) PVY-resistant transgenic potato plants expressing an anti-NIa protein scFv antibody. Mol Biotechnol 33:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 79:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Gruère GP, Carter CA, Farzin YH (2009) Explaining international differences in genetically modified food labeling regulations. Rev Int Econ 17:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA): http://www.isaaa.org/
  14. 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 196:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Trump BD (2017) Synthetic biology regulation and governance: lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore Health Policy, vol 121, pp 1139–1146Google Scholar
  16. Vigani M, Olper A (2013) GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information. Food Policy 43:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vigani M, Olper A (2015) Patterns and determinants of GMO regulations: an overview of recent evidence. AgBioforum 18:44–54Google Scholar
  18. WHO (2006) WHO biorisk management: laboratory biosecurity guidance, 2006, WHO/CDS/EPR/20066Google Scholar
  19. 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/GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Recherche “Bioressources: Biologie Intégrative & Valorisation”, Institut Supérieur de Biotechnologie de Monastir, Avenue Tahar Hadded, BP 74Université de MonastirMonastirTunisia
  2. 2.Laboratory of Improvement & Integrated Development of Animal Productivity & Food Resources, Higher School of Agriculture of MateurUniversity of CarthageBizerteTunisia
  3. 3.Centre of Biotechnology at Borj Cedria TechnoparkHammam-LifTunisia
  4. 4.Agri-food Technical Center (CTAA)ArianaTunisie
  5. 5.Ministry of local affaire and Environment, Direction Générale de l’Environnement et de la Qualité de la Vie (DGEQV)Cité administrative, rue de développementTunisTunisie
  6. 6.Laboratory of seed Analysis and PlantsMinistry of Agriculture, Water Resources and FisheriesTunisTunisia
  7. 7.Central Laboratoiry of Analyses and Assays (LCAE)TunisTunisie
  8. 8.Laboratory for GMO detectionNational Genes Bank of Tunisia. Boulevard du Leader-Yasser-ArafatTunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations