GMO Labeling
Regulatory review of a divided world
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37591/njel.v4i2.903Keywords:
GMO, Labeling, Regulation, International, LegislationAbstract
Abstract
Genetically Modified Organisms, a product of modern biotechnology, took the world food market by surprise. A scurry of GM food products entered our food chain. The production, development, and commercial release of these products was highly divergent in space and time. Resultantly, traceability and labeling of GMOs become an arduous as well as a requisite task. GMOs and products derived from them have been marred in controversies over their biosafety, ecological, economic, and ethical impacts. Thus, labeling and identity preservation of these products become even more important as well as contentious. The paper aims to dissect and establish that the actual labeling practice is far more complicated requiring planning and regulation at every step. The analyses of universally applicable ecological principles, country-wise legal structure, and existing international legislation depicted divergent approaches on GMO labeling which emerges due to varying social, economic, cultural, and political status of the countries. The need is to develop and implement a globally coherent labeling policy for the benefit of humankind.
References
1. Benbrook, CM. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 2012: 24.
2. Acosta, A. Transgenic foods: Promise or peril? Americas 2000: 52: 14-15.
3. Smith, J. Genetic roulette: the documented health risks of genetically engineered foods USA. Yes! Books. Indian Edition. 2009
4. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), 1995 Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm
5. Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), 1995 Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm
6. Kaur, A., Kohli, R.K. and Jaswal, P.S. Genetically Modified Organisms: An Indian Ethical Dilemma. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2012: 26(3):621 -628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9429-4
7. Henard, M.C., Rehder, L. and Williams, B. EU -27 Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report number: FR 9105, USDA Foreign Agriculture Services, USA. 2012
8. EFSA. Administrative guidance for the preparation of applications on novel foods pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, EFSA Supporting Publications, EN-6488, 18: 3. 2015 Available at : https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021
9. Lusk, J.L., McFadden, B.R. and Wilson, N. Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it? Food Policy 2018: 78: 81–90.
10. Yeh, D.A., Gómez, M.I. and Kaiser, H.M. Signaling impacts of GMO labeling on fruit and vegetable demand. PLoS ONE 2019: 14(10) e0223910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0223910
11. USDA. National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard 2 019 Available at: https://www. ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-*standard#:~:text=The %20new%20Standard%20requires%20food,the%20BE%20status%20of%20foods.
12. Silva, J.F. Brazil -Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. Global Agri cultural Information Network (GAIN) Report number: BR0813, USDA Foreign Agriculture Services, USA. 2012
13. Corpuz, P.G. Philipines Biotechnology Annual. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report number: RP 5027, USDA Foreign Agriculture Services, USA. 2005
14. Kong, B. Singapore -Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) USDA Foreign Agriculture Services, USA. 2012
15. David, M. Nigeria-Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) USDA Foreign Agriculture Services, USA. 2012
16. Esterhuizen, D. Republic of South Africa -Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) USDA Foreign Agriculture Services, USA. 2012
17. Crothers, L. Aus tralia-Agricultural Biotechnology Annual. Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Report number: AS1212, USDA Foreign Agriculture Services, USA. 2012
18. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to Convention on Biodiversity, 2018 Available at: https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties/
19. Eggers, B. and Mackenzie, R. The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety, Journal of International Economic Law 2000: 3(3): 525–543 https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/3.3.525
20. Weirich, P. Labeling Genetically Modified Food: The Philosophical and Legal Debate. Oxford University Press, USA. 2008
21. Petetin, L. Precaution and equivalence - the critical interplay in EU biotech foods. European Law Review 2017: 42(6): 831 -847. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97801995 42482.001.0001
22. Bodiguel, L. and Cardwell, M. The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches. Oxford University Press, England 2010
23. Lee, R. The Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Approaches (2010) Edited by Luc Bodiguel and Michael Cardwell (eds) Journal of Environmental Law 2010: 22(3): 511-514 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqq015
24. Davison, J. GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations. Plant Science 2010: 178:94-98.
25. Kaur, A., Jaswal, P.S. and Kohli, R.K. Genetically Modified Crops in the Courts Environmental Policy and Law 2013: 43(1): 36-40
26. Gupta, A. Governing Trade in Genetically Modified Organisms: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Environment: Science and Poli cy for Sustainable Development 2000: 42(4): 22 -33 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00139150009604881
27. McFadden, B.R. and Malone, T. How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision -making? Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics 2018: 77: 186–94
28. Einstein, A. Out of my later years. Open Road Integrated Media, 2011 Ed. New York, USA.1956
