5th Global Conference
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Conference Programme, Abstracts and Papers
Monday 3rd July - Thursday 6th
July 2006
Mansfield College, Oxford
Session 7(a): Regulation, Dimensions and Impediments
Chair: Judith Andre
The Regulation of Genetically Modified Plant Resources
in India: Epistemological Frameworks and Assumptions
Janak
Rana Ghose
Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, England
The innovation and resultant formal ownership of genetically modified (GM) plant genetic resources in a World Trade Organization (WTO) milieu has created a context where the regulation of how these particular resources are managed is subject to a prescribed set of minimum criteria, based primarily on scientific tenets and /or economic efficiency. This formulation creates a more explicit set of guidelines to assist and direct member states in creating regulation, but also offers the spectre of an excessively narrow basis to consider the potential effects of adoption of these resources, and as a corollary, their management. This paper will address precisely what is meant by both formal and informal regulation within the context of GM plant resources, and will focus on the regulatory experience of India, using the only GM crop cultivated to date in that country, Bt Cotton, as a case study. There has been significant debate surrounding how India’s current and proposed regulatory framework has been created, and whether or not the results of these efforts have been feasible and appropriate. I will argue here that using more traditional positivist regulatory approaches may not be appropriate, given the relatively brief period the technology has been available, the limited knowledge that exists regarding the ability to contain it with regards to the possibility of contaminating non-GM varieties, and the lacking clarity that surrounds the potential impacts of these technologies on human health. This paper will offer a historical review of frameworks and epistemologies of both formal and informal regulation frameworks addressing natural resources from the perspective of a number of different disciplines, so as to present a normative structure for analysis. It will then draw from this review to offer insight on what may be most appropriate and tenable in the Indian context with regards to GM.
Ethical, Cultural and Spiritual Dimensions of Genetic Modification
Alastair
S. Gunn and Kelly Tudhope
Public debate on genetic engineering (GE)
has mostly focused on perceived risks and benefits to agriculture and
consumers through widespread cultivation and consumption of GE products.
Promoters of GE products promise improved food quality, wider availability
of food to undernourished people in poor countries, and economic benefits
to farmers. Opponents are sceptical of these claims, and warn of risks
to conventional agriculture via mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer
and the creation of "superweeds".
Thus, the debate is largely conducted at a pragmatic, utilitarian level.
In no way do we wish to downplay the importance of these issues. However,
we believe that GE raises other concerns that go beyond an assessment
of risks and benefits. These include concerns that are "universal" in
the sense that they are (or should be) important to everyone, for instance,
cultural diversity and food security. Yet others arise in the context
of local communities and cultures, particularly those of colonised indigenous
people in countries such as Aotearoa-New Zealand (A-NZ) and Hawaii. Ecofeminists
have raised concerns, as part of their general position on the exploitation
of nature.
We recognise that it is difficult to develop a policy that
will reconcile diametrically opposed values. However, we strongly believe
that in countries that are still largely GE free a serious effort must
be made to do so, before irreversible decisions are made.
Legal Impediments to the Survival of Organic Production?
Martin
Phillipson
College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Canada
This paper will examine whether the legal system (with
Canada as a focus) is complicit in facilitating a decline in the viability
of organic production. Recent case law in Canada, combined with a rather
laissez faire approach to the post-approval regulation of GM crops, is
placing the future of organic production in serious jeopardy.
It is essential
for organic producers that they ensure that their crops are not contaminated
by GM material. In Canada, the recent decision in Hoffman v Monsanto
has indicated that organic farmers whose crops may have been contaminated
by GM material may not have a legal remedy against the manufacturers
of GM crop systems. Legislation in most of Canada already prohibits legal
action against farmers who grow GM crops.
This lack of redress, when combined
with the widespread and uncontained release of GM material, is leading
to a situation whereby it will be impossible for organic farmers to certify
their output as GM free. This will inevitably lead to loss of certification
and a consequent loss of markets.
While it is not suggested that this
decline is a deliberate strategy on the part of regulators and the courts,
the conclusion of the paper is that if the law remains in its current
state organic producers will find it increasingly difficult to ensure
the integrity of their crops. In essence, the legal system may be complicit
in facilitating the dominance of GM by stealth.
While the paper will primarily
examine Canadian material, the conclusions of the paper are relevant
to any jurisdiction in which GM and Organic production are attempting
to co-exist.