1 / 17

LECTURE GEOG 270 Fall 2007 November 28, 2007 Joe Hannah, PhD Department of Geography

Understand the global policy landscape surrounding GMOs in Third World countries. Delve into the "Permissive" vs. "Precautionary" approaches, historical contexts, and stakeholder analyses.

dinam
Download Presentation

LECTURE GEOG 270 Fall 2007 November 28, 2007 Joe Hannah, PhD Department of Geography

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LECTURE GEOG 270 Fall 2007 November 28, 2007 Joe Hannah, PhD Department of Geography University of Washington

  2. Policy Responses to GMOs in Third World Countries “Permissive” vs. “Precautionary”

  3. Last Time: Three Criteria for GMO Business Science Profitability GMOs Law

  4. Today: Focus on Law and Policy • Review “Permissive” vs. ”Precautionary” approaches • A little history • Some policy examples (from Paarlberg)

  5. “Permissive” vs. “Precautionary” Approaches • “Permissive Approach” favors allowing an activity to continue until proof of either no effect or a negative impact is obtained. • “Precautionary” approach favors constraining an activity when there is high scientific uncertainty regarding its effects on the natural environment;

  6. Rio Earth Summit Conference,1992 Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

  7. McGloughlin vs. Altieri & Rossett:Permissive or Preventive? Risks of eating GMOs understudied, “unpredictable” (Altieri & Rossett) Risks of eating GMOS “alarmist” (McGloughlin)

  8. McGloughlin vs. Altieri & Rossett:Permissive or Preventive? There are many unanswered ecological questions regarding the impact of transgenic crops. Many environmental groups have argued for the creation of suitable regulation to mediate the testing and release of transgenic crops to offset environmental risks and demand a much better assessment and understanding of ecological issues associated with genetic engineering.(Altieri & Rossett)

  9. McGloughlin vs. Altieri & Rossett:Permissive or Preventive? Many of Altieri and Rosset's "unanswered ecological questions regarding the impact of transgenic crops" are not unanswered… This is not to say that environmental and other impact assessment of biotechnology crops should not be expanded. Indeed, more impact assessment studies are needed to … answer any unanswered questions and put risks and benefits of biotechnology crops and foods in a proper perspective.(McGloughlin)

  10. A Little History • 1996-1999 bulk of GMO plantings were in US, Canada and Argentina… • … b/c GMOs originally designed for wealthier farmers in temporate climates

  11. More history… • Starting in about 1997 – conscious policy decisions in First World countries to restrict planting and consumption of GMO crops • 1996 “Mad Cow” disease (not GMO-related) • 1997 Europe began adopting “precautionary principle” approach to consumer marketing of GMO products • Japan and other Asia-Pacific countries soon followed suit

  12. Third World Policy Choices? • Result of US “permissive” approach and European/Japanese “precautionary” approach has led to a complicated set of policy choices for Third World countries • Great pressure to allow or restrict GMOs from: Donors, international agencies, foundations, corporations, trade organizations, NGOs, farmers groups, governments, etc. Remember last time: Corporations undertaking huge lobbying efforts!

  13. Two questions: • What is in the best interest of each Third World country? • Is the private-industry (neo-liberal) approach well-suited to addressing those interests (given weaker technical and regulatory capacities)?

  14. Some Policy Examples(from Paarlberg, 2000) • Biosafety in Kenya (as of 2000) • Policy under the Ministry of Science and technology • Importing or growing GMOs under illegal 1998 law • Any permissions for use of GMOs should take into account “whether enough is known to evaluate the safety or risk” • Paarlberg: “precautionary tone” is probably due to European influence in the drafting process of the law (Dutch funding, Swedish model)

  15. Some Policy Examples(from Paarlberg, 2000) • Biosafety in Brazil • Policy under the Ministry of Science and technology • Originally very permissive, leading to Monsanto field testing Roundup-ready soybeans • 1998 lawsuit by consumer protection organization  restraining order • Precautionary principle applies while various lawsuits are working through the courts • (Remember Kacy McKinney’s talk on the MST?)

  16. Some Policy Examples(from Paarlberg, 2000) • Biosafety in China • Early adoption of GM crops • Policy formulation delegated to Ministry of Agriculture • Standards based on demonstrated risk rather than on uncertainties • GM crops considered no more dangerous than conventional crops • Note that environmental NGOs heavily constrained in China

  17. Stakeholder Analysis • Each person or institution (like the Ministry of Science or the Ministry of Agriculture or the local farmer) has specific interests at stake (thus “stakeholder”) • Is it in their interest to adopt a “permissive” or a “precautionary” approach? • (This might be one part of the analysis in your paper… hint, hint…)

More Related