Preview

BRICS Law Journal

Advanced search

SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND LIABILITY REGULATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IN THE BRICS COUNTRIES

https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-5-1-27-55

Full Text:

Abstract

International trade of food products is expected to increase rapidly with the widespread introduction of genetically modified (GM) food. There will be greater participation of developing countries based on investment as well as research and development. Investment in research and development and commercial production of GM crops is high in Asia, particularly in India and China, but also in Latin American countries, such as Brazil, and on the African continent, especially in South Africa. Despite the merits, the introduction of GM foods in the world market has continued to raise public concerns touching upon health, legal, social, ethical and environmental issues. Especially, the issue of contamination is considered asignificant threat at many stages of development of GM food. Transboundary aspects and certain aspects of the components of the food safety system such as safety assessment, liability and redress are still not completely addressed. The present study is the systematic review of the extent of the development of legislation and institutional mechanisms in relation to safety assessment and liability mechanisms for regulating the emerging GM foods in the developing countries of BRICS. Additionally, the comparison of the components of national food safety systems of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa reveals differences in policy and regulation in relation to GM food.

About the Author

Sh. K. Balashanmugam
Tamil Nadu National Law School
India

Assistant Professor

Room No. 9, Block-B, Quarters, Navalurkuttappattu, Srirangam taluk, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, 620009



References

1. Duall E. ALiability and Redress Regime for Genetically Modified Organisms under the Cartagena Protocol, 36(1) George Washington International Law Review 173 (2004).

2. Eggers B. & Mackenzie R. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 3(3) Journal of International Environmental Law 525 (2000).

3. Freestone D. & Hey E. Origins and Development of the Precautionary Principle in The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation (D. Freestone & E. Hey (eds.), Cambridge: Kluwer Law International, 1996).

4. Hagen P.E. & Weiner J.B. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: New Rules for International Trade in Living Modified Organisms, 12 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 697 (2000).

5. Henson S. & Caswell J. Food Safety Regulation: An Overview of Contemporary Issues, 24(6) Food Policy 589 (1999).

6. Huang J. et al. Agricultural Biotechnology Development, Policy and Impact in China, 37(27) Economic and Political Weekly 2756 (2002).

7. Kandasamy M. & Manchikanti P. Transgenic Crop Research and Regulation in India: Whether Legislation Rightly Drives the Motion?, 20(4) Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 17 (2014).

8. Liener I.E. Implications of Anti-Nutritional Components in Soybean Foods, 34(1) Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 31 (1994).

9. Long J.A. Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 11 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 253 (1999).

10. Losey J.E. Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae, 399(6733) Nature 214 (1990).

11. Messenger G. The Development of World Trade Organisation Law: Examining Change in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

12. Newell P. Lost in Translation? Domesticating Global Policy on Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparing India and China, 22(1) Global Society 115 (2008).

13. Nordlee J.A. et al. Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans, 334(11) New England Journal of Medicine 688 (1996).

14. Orellana M.A. Evolving WTO Law Concerning Health, Safety and Environmental Measures, 1(1) Trade, Law and Development 103 (2009).

15. Lawrence P. Negotiation of a Protocol on Liability and Compensation for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, 7(3) Review of European Community and International Environmental 249 (2002).

16. Schwabach A. Transboundary Environmental Harm and State Responsibility: Customary International Law, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (Feb. 20, 2018), available at https://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C14/E1-36-02-02.pdf.

17. Strauss D.M. Genetically Modified Organisms in Food: A Model of Labeling and Monitoring with Positive Implications for International Trade, 40 International Lawyer 95 (2006).

18. Tan T. et al. The Impact of GMO Safety Regulations on Chinese Soybean Exports, 3(3) Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 164 (2013).

19. Wallis E. Fish Genes Into Tomatoes: How The World Regulates Genetically Modified Foods, 80 North Dakota Law Review 421 (2004).

20. Wang C. & Yu W. Agro-GMO Biosafety Legislation in China: Current Situation, Challenges, and Solutions, 13(4) Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 865 (2011–2012).

21. Zepeda J.F. Coexistence, Genetically Modified Biotechnologies and Biosafety: Implications for Developing Countries, 88(5) American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1200 (2006).


For citation:


Balashanmugam S. SAFETY ASSESSMENT AND LIABILITY REGULATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IN THE BRICS COUNTRIES. BRICS Law Journal. 2018;5(1):27-55. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-5-1-27-55

Views: 596


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2409-9058 (Print)
ISSN 2412-2343 (Online)