Consumer right vs industry right - Tort laws on GMOs in France - Coursework Example

Consumer Right vs. Industry Right - Tort Laws on GMOs in France al Affiliation Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 3 Keywords: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), Laws, Approval, France, European Union, Genetic Engineering, Biotechnology 3 Introduction 4 Scientific Studies on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) 7 Tort laws on GMOs in France 9 France 2008 Plans to Restore GMO Approval Procedures 11 Current Political and Legislative Process of GMOs in France 15 Recommendations for Legislation of GMOs 16 Conclusion 17 Abstract Over the years, different forms of biotechnologies have been developed. Genetic engineering is the most recent form of biotechnology. Genetic engineering involves the manipulation of the genetic makeup of micro-organisms through introduction or elimination of particular genes using contemporary molecular biology techniques. In the European Union, genetically modified organisms which are a product of genetic engineering were introduced in the 1990s. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the issue, which generated a lot of media interest. Although several member states of the European Union were against the authorization of genetically modified crops, the European Commission authorised their use in 1997. In the same year, the first requests for the approval of genetically modified organisms took place in France. In 1998, the nation formulated a national policy to restrict production of some GMO products and their importation. GMOs however continued to be used in France although there was a lot of constant uproar from the public. In regard to redress for harms caused by GMOs, tort laws have been applied in France. In 2008, France restored procedures for approval of genetically modified organisms. In 2014, the nation banned the cultivation of genetically modified maize and it is predicted that in future France will be a GMO free nation. Keywords: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), Laws, Approval, France, European Union, Genetic Engineering, Biotechnology Introduction Different biotechnologies have been developed by people in different cultures. Some biotechnologies have been in existence for millenniums. Such include renin application in cheese making and manipulation of micro-organisms in fermentation to make wine or bread among others (Brown & Fedoroff, 2004). In modern years, genetic engineering is applied in manipulation of the genetic makeup of micro-organisms through introduction or elimination of particular genes using contemporary molecular biology techniques (Nicholl, 2008). FAO defines a genetically modified organism as a “living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology” (2001, p. 1). In agriculture, the development of genetically modified organisms has been in existence for a few years (Nordic Council of Ministers, 1999). However, commercial use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture is growing at a rapid rate. Potatoes, cotton, soybeans, canola and corn are the most used genetically modified crops (Nelson, 2001). Nelson asserts that “the first GM crops were commercialized by China in the early 1990s, with the introduction of virus-resistant tobacco and later a virus-resistant tomato” (2001, p. 3). Among nations that were then industrialized, the United States was the first to make commercial use of a food product that was genetically modified. This was after the introduction of the Flavr Savr tomato, whose ripening was delayed, in 1994 by Calgene (Gresshoff, 1996). Today, genetically modified crops are grown in large areas in South Africa, Mexico, and Argentina, while North America grows the most genetically modified crops overall (Nelson, 2001). In the late 1990s, genetically modified organisms entered European Union politics and their application received a lot of attention from the media (Lee, 2008). A regulatory framework for genetically modified organisms was thereafter created. However, groups representing small-scale farmers and those advocating for the wellbeing of the environment held campaigns against genetically modified food, as they argued that the regulatory framework was not adequate. In France and the United Kingdom, protestors destroyed all genetically modified crops (Bamford, 2007). In 1996, the first cloned animal known as Dolly the sheep was introduced to the global media in Scotland (Bernauer, 2003). This prompted a lot of interest in the future of biotechnology as well as its safety and ethical significance. Although several member states of the European Union were against the authorization of genetically modified crops, the European Commission authorised their use in 1997 (Bertheau, 2013). Scientific uncertainty regarding the effects of genetically modified organisms continued to linger, especially after “Dr Arpad Pusztai announced on a television documentary that rats fed on GM potatoes suffered from stunted growth, suppressed immune systems and reduced body weight” (Lee, 2008, p. 2). As a result of this there was a lot of legal response to the issue of genetically modified organisms and this led to the collapse of a 1990 legislation that recommended authorisation of GMOs (Brownsword & Goodwin, 2012). Between 1998 and 2004, applications that had been made to have genetically modified organisms’ authorisation did not reach the final stage of the decision making process (Evenson & Santaniello, 2006). Moreover, “a number of member states introduced measures barring national market access to GMOs that had already been authorised” (Lee, 2008, p. 3). France was the first European nation to be confronted by the issue of genetically modified organisms (Lynch & Vogel, 2001). In the European continent, the first requests for the approval of genetically modified organisms were made in 1997 in France (Ladi, 2007). In 1998, the nation established a new national policy restricting production of some GMO products and their importation (United States Department of State, 1999). Genetically modified crops and animals however continued to be grown and reared in France. In 2008, the nation announced its wish to restore genetically modified organisms approval procedures (Fischer, 2008). In 2014, Monsanto strain of genetically modified maize was banned in the nation and afterwards all genetically modified maize strains were banned (Louv, n.d.). According to Raju (2007), a huge debate has risen in regard to the use of genetically modified organisms in animals and food. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the ethics and business practices of some big corporations, international relations, economics, the environment and health that has been brought about by the extensive cultivation of genetically modified crops (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005). The likely and future effect of genetically modified agriculture on the environment is one area that has led to a lot of debate (Chopra, 2005). One extreme of the debate argues that genetically modified agriculture carries a lot of harm for the environment and global agriculture, while the other end argues that the risks, if any are few and genetically modified agriculture could actually save the future of the environment and global agriculture. McManis points out that “as with many highly polarized debates, there is a vast middle ground that, in case of GM agriculture, acknowledges the great potential of biotechnology but also raises science-based concerns” (2007, p. 137). Studies in the area of genetically modified organisms are necessary as they are what have led to the present state of the issue. It is through studies done on GMOs that their benefits such as pest resistance and herbicide tolerance in crops, disease resistance in crops and animals, cold tolerance for seedlings, drought tolerance for crops, nutritional solutions for worldwide populations and advances in the pharmaceutical industry have been made (ProQuest, 2013). Through the same studies, the drawbacks of genetically modified organisms such as risks to human health, which include unknown effects and allergenicity, environmental risks such as gene transfer to species that are sometimes not targeted for GMOs, reduction in pesticide effectiveness and unmeant general harm to organisms, and economic concerns have been realised (ProQuest, 2013). Scientific Studies on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Genetically modified organisms have been beneficial and equally harmful to people’s lives and the environment (MIT, n.d.). It is possible to reap great results in forestry, fisheries and agriculture without the use of any biotechnology, but biotechnology leads to mush better results and this is the reason it is relied on in the named areas. The term biotechnology refers to different kinds of biotechnologies (Ong & Chen, 2010). It is therefore important to note that some biotechnologies such as molecular diagnostics, cell isolation and tissue cultures are beneficial as they can be used safely to increase food security around the globe (IAASTD, 2009). When it comes to genetically modified organisms, the situation becomes complicated. According to the Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture, “biotechnologies provide many alternatives to GMO products, and such alternatives should be preferred where there are significant uncertainties or risks from using GMOs, particularly when the expected benefits are few” (2002, p. 13). According to Sandhu, “genetically modified plants in agriculture as well as transgenic animals in veterinary science, deals with the growth of plants and animals with altered characteristics” (2010, p. 173). Interaction between genetically modified plants and animals and the open environment usually takes place as both are exposed to each other. This is due to the fact that some Genetically modified organisms have antibiotic resistance markers and toxic genes (Whelan, 2001). Due to the fact that not much research has been done on transgenic plants and animals, the risks pointed out are only out of speculation. As Acquaah points out, there is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about genetic manipulation (2012). This makes it a requirement that before any kind of approval of commercialization, genetically modified crops and animals should undergo a lot of trials for environmental impact and safety before being released to the public (Sandhu, 2010). Among the benefits of genetically modified organisms is their ability to reduce the need for pesticide use in agriculture and increasing agricultural yields, which makes it possible to meet the food needs of the world’s populations (Popp, ‎ Matlock, Jahn & Kemper, 2012). Weiss, Jackson, and Bernasconi-Osterwalder however point out that “science has not yet fully explored the potential environmental and health risks” (2008, p. 575). Weed generation and disruption of the ecosystem are the potential environmental risks of genetically modified organisms (Dickmann, 2001). An example is the possible cross-pollination of normal weed seeds with seeds that are genetically modified leading to weeds that are resistant to herbicides. Crops that are genetically modified to resist viruses can also lead to formation of new diseases that could be difficult to control (Graham, ‎L., Graham, J. & Wilcox, ‎2006). In most regions of the world, genetically modified foods are viewed as being harmful to humans (Lamikanra, 2002). In fact, it is believed that science is not what has allowed these foods to get into the world’s markets. Rather, the cause has been industry domination. Stein points out that “all over the western world, scientists have been muzzled, bribed, forced to resign their positions, had their research files stolen, and come under unprecedented pressures to keep quiet about the disturbing results of their scientific tests” on whether foods that are genetically modified are good for consumption by humans and animals (2008, p. 124). Companies such as Monsanto have their products approved as a result of bribing relevant officials with the assistance of companies dealing with development of genetically modified products that give them the funds (Stein, 2008). According to Stein, “genetic engineering is the process of artificially splitting apart strands of DNA, which carry all the genetic codes of organisms in separate packets, called genes” (2008, p. 124). Genes are then taken from the organism with the suitable characteristics and placed in the DNA of the other organism to make it bring out the required characteristics. With nature however, it is impossible to cross tomatoes with flounder, dogs with monkeys or avocadoes with tomatoes, but genetic engineering makes it possible. Genetically modified foods are very different from normal foods although they might seem more appealing, healthier and could be tastier (Kreipe, 2010). The truth is that they possess harmful effects to the heath of animals and humans and are lower in nutritional value if any. Tort laws on GMOs in France In nations, civil wrongs are recognised by the respective laws and there are lawsuits formulated for this. When some civil wrongs are committed, they result to harm or injury to one party. The injured party can make a claim for compensation and this is handled using tort laws (Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, 2008). As mentioned earlier, France was the first European nation to be confronted by the issue of genetically modified organisms and the first where requests for the approval of genetically modified organisms were made. In 1998, a new national policy was established in France to restrict production of some GMO products and their importation (International Business Publications, 2011). Presently in France, there is no common liability system for handling losses caused by genetically modified organisms. Koch notes that “however, a 2008 law on genetically modified organisms imposes a new strict liability regime on GM farmers for pure economic loss incurred by non-GM farmers as a result of contamination of their crops by neighbouring GM crops” (2010, p. 171). This does not mean that administrative liability and general civil principles become irrelevant. They remain relevant and can be used by farmers whose crops get contaminated. In regard to harm caused by genetically modified organisms to the environment, the Law of Environmental Liability in France in 2008, implemented a 2004 Directive on Environmental Liability (Koch, 2010). When the state of France is to blame for causing genetically modified organisms related damage, it becomes liable under administrative law (Koch, 2010). An example is when a French “research institute carries out field tests on genetically modified plants which then contaminate neighbouring crops, then the administrative courts impose strict liability for nuisance on the state for damage which exceeds ‘the normal levels of disturbance to neighbours” (Koch, 2010, p. 171-172). Sometimes, the state could not be the only body at fault for causing harm related to the use of genetically modified organisms as administrative bodies also happen to be at fault sometimes and in certain circumstances. Koch asserts that “where there has been a failure to attach adequate conditions to an authorisation for dissemination, where the authorities have failed to use their powers to enforce regulations and conditions of exploitation” (2010, p. 172), the administrative authorities are held liable. Another case is where the authorities fail to adequately impose regulations for food safety. When such events occur, claimants still address their claims through the administrative courts of France. Here, the liability could be “based on proof of a faute loured or faute simple”, application of the rules of administrative law, or fault (Koch, 2020, p. 172). As mentioned before, a new liability scheme in the area of genetically modified organisms in France was established in 2008. Under this regime, compensation is meant to be paid by GM farmers and the financing for compensation will be done by private liability insurance instead of the French government. For the different types of damages which include moral damage, property damage, personal injury or pure economic loss, recovery from these many losses is possible through application of French liability rules. There have been very few cases, if any, allowing recovery from environmental damage. In the future however, it is predicted that there will be a lot of case urging for recovery from environmental damage. Under the French law, only damage that is certain can be recoverable. Plain fear of a future loss that could be caused by genetically modified organisms cannot be taken as a substantial claim. In regard to complete economic loss, the French tort law allows recovery from damage. This however is only after “the general requirements for liability are fulfilled, namely that the damage is sufficiently certain and that a causal link between that loss and the act or omission generating liability is established” (Koch, 2010, p. 173). France 2008 Plans to Restore GMO Approval Procedures In 2008, France through its then environment minister, Jean Louis Borloo, announced plans to restore genetically modified organisms approval procedures; this was in the month of June that year (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). France’s presidency in the European Union was to begin in the month of July that year and the minister took the opportunity to inform the nation’s counterparts that once in presidency, the nation would restore the procedures. France intended to promote all-inclusive testing for GMOs to find potential effects that they could have on the environment and human beings and to ensure that the scientific advice given by the European Food Safety Authority is given more attention by the member states of the European Union (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). Moreover, France wanted to resume discussions on the beginning of labelling for genetically modified seeds that had been delayed for years. There was also a proposal by France that EU member states got the option of deciding whether to regulate the cultivation of some varieties of genetically modified seeds cultivated in the nations taking note the nation’s geographical conditions, agricultural methods and specific ecosystems (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). France did not give a plan of how it intended to implement its proposals. In case this was to be done through an amendment of the current laws at the time, the legislative process would be long and would need lengthy discussions whose outcomes could not be predicted. Prior to this move by France, European member states against and for the approval of genetically modified crops had never managed to reach conclusive decisions (GMFreeze, 2014). Debates on the subject would go on and on and the European Union would end up having to choose whether to approve the proposals made and decisions of approval would be guided by the EU Regulation on Genetically Modified Food and Feed and the Deliberate Release Directive (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). The decisions to approve some genetically modified organisms however were usually against most EU member states as very few agreed with the approval procedures (Bureau of National Affairs, 1996). At the time, the working methods of the European Food Safety Authority were also highly doubted. The direction in which the French government planned to use to govern the European procedure on genetic engineering was laid out on a background paper. The background paper highlighted that there was need to bring some kinds of assessment closer to the crop protection products assessment criteria. This included the assessment of non-target organisms’ cultivation impact, herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). Additionally, France held firm to the idea that there was need to come with methods for evaluating the benefits of genetically modified organisms and the effects of genetically modified organisms on various production systems, agronomic effects and economic criteria in regard to risk assessment. Above all, France held that the main principles for the approval of genetically modified organisms should continue to be based on protecting the environment and health (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). The approval of a national genetic engineering act took months of heated debates for both parliamentary chambers to agree on similar principles (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). The French national genetic engineering act placed emphasis on maintenance of respect for French agriculture, the environment, and the health of the French public, as well as advancement of biotechnology. The then French environment minister, Jean Louis Borloo, emphasized on this urging that these were the reasons behind the act and that the French government was not against or in support of the cultivation of genetically modified crops (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). According to the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the provisions of the French national genetic engineering act only allowed the cultivation of genetically modified crops after determination that they are safe for the ecosystem, public health and the environment (2008). For French farmers making plans to cultivate genetically modified crops, the act laid out that they are to inform the appropriate authorities about the location of the fields, as well as their neighbours. For all genetically modified crops cultivation sites in France, the relevant authorities were expected to keep records of them according to the act and allow a close examination on them by the public. The act also contained provisions highlighting how ordinary crops could coexist together with genetically modified crops. The French agricultural ministry planned to issue factual rules for the cultivation of various genetically modified crops. To ensure that the effects of genetically modified crops on ordinary crops stayed at minimum, the ministry came up with efficient separation distances; this was at less than one per cent of the threshold given by the European Union (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). The ministry also made plans to ensure that products with over one per cent genetically modified organisms got labelled. When the ordinary crops of a farmer neighbouring those of a genetically modified crop farmer got over 0.9 per cent genetic modification, the genetically modified crops farmer would be held liable and would compensate the ordinary crop farmer for any losses he incurs (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). Liability insurance was also made a requirement for any farmer planning to cultivate genetically modified crops. The French national genetic engineering act also made it a requirement that the production and marketing of products not genetically modified continued. The products would then be labelled GMO-free. At the European level, there was no definition for the term, so France has to come up with its own threshold for products with this kind of a label. This is when the AOC label got into use in France (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2008). In the regional and national parks of France, the cultivation of genetically modified crops was prohibited. Current Political and Legislative Process of GMOs in France Opposition to the cultivation of genetically modified crops in France has existed for years. After a lot of senate debates on a law meant to ban cultivation of genetically modified maize, the French parliament approved it in May 2014 (Reuters, 2014). According to Reuters, the law had already been adopted by the lower house of parliament in France in April 2014 (2014). At the European Union level, the cultivation of genetically modified maize had already been cleared. In March 2014, a degree suspending the cultivation of Monsato maize, which is made insect resistant through genetic engineering, was approved in France (Reuters, 2014). At the time, Monsato maize was the only genetically modified crop whose cultivation the European Union allowed for specific reasons (Plunkett, 2008). The law made no exception to strains of genetically modified crops that could be adopted in the European Union in the future. The predecessor to the current government in France, which is a Socialist one was a conservative govern and in regard to genetically modified crops, both governments are against their cultivation. This stand has been strengthened by the numerous protests held by environmentalists in France and the huge suspicion towards the strains by the public. The ban on genetically modified maize in France is just a beginning to a revolution of completely banning genetically modified crops and products from the nation. France was accused of having violated the law of the European Union after banning the cultivation of the Monsanto strain of genetically modified maize. However, France held firm to its stand. This was confirmed by France president, Francois Hollande, who insisted that the ban would be extended for the sake of France’s agricultural system integrity (Huff, 2013). According to Huff, Monsanto had faced a temporary ban in France in 2006, as it was suspected of possessing threats to the environment. The ban was however later revoked (2013). Even if the European Union approves some strains o genetically modified crops, it can be predicted that France will not approve them. This is very possible given the current bill under debate in parliament that proposes a ban on all genetically modified crops. Such decrees have in the past been blocked by seed companies and farmers. Though the companies have the persistence and power to push for approval of their genetically modified seeds, safety and consumer concerns will certainly win in the end. Recommendations for Legislation of GMOs Genetically modified organisms are beneficial yet harmful and this brings about the need for regulation in this area. According to Brossard, ‎ Shanahan & Nesbitt, nations need to formulate sufficient policies and laws for regulation in the field of biotechnology research (2007). Moreover, adequate evaluation policies to protect the wellbeing of the environment and human beings are necessary. According to UNEP, “there is need to develop harmonized approaches to biotechnology and the African Biosafety Model Law provides a good basis for this, as does the model law for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities farmers, Breeders and Regulation of Access to Biological Resources” (2006, p. 323). For authorised genetically modified products and crops, there is need for standards for risk reduction. Mariani asserts that “safe uses of pesticides, food additives, and animal drugs must be ascertained prior to marketing, which involves the use of experts able to make scientifically defensible decisions in the interest of public health based on varying levels of available information” (2007, p. 164). In regard to matters that may require more information before GMOs are approved and marketed, dialogue between regulators and the public should be encouraged so that they can also make their contributions. It is a fact that most developed countries are only at the first stages of developing regulations for genetically modified organisms. Field tests and regulations guiding them are also a necessity. The regulations of some developed nations are effective and most developing nations are using them as guides in formulating their own regulations. According to Nelson (2001), “In South Africa, for example, the government is working to harmonize its regulations with the United States so that the applicants in the country will no longer need to seek a permit for using a product from a transgenic crop” (p. 108). This however only works for products approved in the developed nations and whose field trial applications are submitted. In the European Union, the regulation process for transgenic crops should be made simpler to remove the complexities that exist in the system. This is supported by Nelson who urges that “the inherent ambivalence of the EU position on such matters as GMOs is exacerbated by the complexity of multiple levels of decision-making, creating confusion for the rest of the world” (2001, p. 114). This was the policy situation of the European Union will be more definite. In regard to France, a move towards a GMO free environment is a good one as this eliminates any future uncertainties regarding the cultivation of genetically modified crops and use of genetically modified products. It is a safe way of staying away from any implications that may arise. After all, the nation can choose to reinstate genetically modified organisms after a lot of researches have been carried out and they have been proven to be safe. Conclusion Genetically modified crops and animals and the general field of genetically modified organisms is an issue that generates a lot of debate. The winning side can however not be pointed out as it is not known and the truth of the matter is far from being discovered. Just as people and the media pays attention to bad news more than the good, the bad side of GMOs seems to receive more attention worldwide compared to their good side. Among the benefits of genetically modified organisms is that they make it possible for farmers to grow pesticide and herbicide resistant crops, the nutritional value of plants and animals is improved through genetic engineering, the yields of animals and crops reared and grown for commercial agriculture purposes are increased, and therefore overall, profitability is boosted. Ethical concerns however make the issue of genetically modified organisms extremely controversial. It is argued that as small farmers suffer, big agricultural companies reap huge benefits, good farming practices are discouraged and bad environmental practices are encouraged, although animal and crop yield for genetically modified animals and crops may be excellent, there are possibilities of arising health concerns, resistant genes could be spread to wild plants giving rise to an irreversible situation and generally, the future of this kind of technology is very uncertain. Reference List Acquaah, G. (2012). Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Bureau of National Affairs. (1996). International Environment Reporter: Current Report, Volume 19. Bloomberg: Bureau of National Affairs. Bernauer, T. (2003). Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bertheau, Y. (2013). Genetically Modified and non-Genetically Modified Food Supply Chains: Co-existence and Traceability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Bamford, Sandra C. (2007). Biology Unmoored: Melanesian Reflections on Life and Biotechnology. California: University of California Press. Brossard, D., Shanahan, J. & Nesbitt, T. C. (2007). The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology. Oxfordshire: CAB International. Brown, N. M. & Fedoroff, N. V. (2004). Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientists View of Genetically Modified Food. London” The National Academies. Brownsword, R. & Goodwin, M. (2012). Law and the Technologies of the Twenty-First Century: Text and Materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chopra, K. R. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses: Findings of the Responses working Group. Washington DC: Island Press. Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor. (2008). Making the Law Work for Everyone: Working Group Reports. New York: LEP. Lynch, D. & Vogel, D. (2001). The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688. Dickmann, D. (2001). Popular Culture in North America. New Westminster: NRC Research Press. Evenson, R. E. & Santaniello, V. (2006). International Trade and Policies for Genetically Modified Products. Oxfordshire: CAB International. FAO. (2001). Genetically Modified Organisms, Consumers, Food Safety and the Environment. Rome: FAO Information Division. Federal Ministry of Education and Research. (2008). France Plans to Overhaul Approval Procedures for GMOs. Retrieved from http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/577.france-plans-overhaul-approval-procedures-gmos.html. Fischer, R. (2008). European Governance Still Technocratic? New Modes of Governance for Food Safety Regulation in the European Union. Retrieved from http://eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view/2008_006a/83. GMFreeze. (2014). Contamination Matters – Why GM crops can’t be Managed at a national Level. Retrieved from http://www.gmfreeze.org/site_media/uploads/publications/2014_contam_final.pdf. Graham, L.E., Graham, J. M. & Wilcox, L. W. (2006). Plant Biology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Gresshoff, Peter M. (1996). Technology Transfer of Plant Biotechnology. Florida: CRC Press. Huff, E. A. (2013). France confirms it will continue Ban on GMO Corn, despite Council Ruling. Retrieved from http://www.infowars.com/france-confirms-it-will-continue-ban-on-gmo-corn-despite-council-ruling/. IAASTD. (2009). IAASTD Report: Agriculture at a crossroads (2009): Volume I: Central and West Asia and North Africa. Retrieved from http://www.weltagrarbericht.de/reports/CWANA/130.html. International Business Publications. (2011). France Mining Laws and Regulations Handbook. Washington D.C.: International Business Publications. Koch, B. A. (2010). Damage Caused by Genetically Modified Organisms: Comparative Survey of Redress Options for Harm to Persons, Property or the Environment. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. Kreipe, M. (2010). Genetically Modified Food: Trade Regulation in View of Environmental Policy Objectives. Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag. Ladi, Z. (2007). The Great Disruption. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lamikanra, O. (2002). Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables: Science, Technology, and Market. Florida: CRC Press LLC. Lee, M. (2008). EU Regulation of GMOs: Law and Decision Making for a New Technology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Louv, J. (n.d.). 5 Countries that are Throwing Monsanto Out on its Ass. Retrieved from http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/04/01/5-countries-throwing-monsanto-ass/. Mariani, M.T. (2007). The Intersection of International Law, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Infectious Disease. Leiden: Kononklijke Brill NV. McManis, C. R. (2007). Biodiversity and the Law: Intellectual Property, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge. Virginia: Earthscan. MIT. (n.d.). Genetically Modified Crops. Retrieved from http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2014/genetically-modified-crops. Nelson, G. C. (2001). Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics. London: Academic Press. Nicholl, Desmond S. T. (2008). An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nordic Council of Ministers. (1999). Genetically Modified Organisms in Nordic Habitats: Sustainable use or loss of Diversity? Copenhagen: TemaNord. Ong, A. & Chen, N. N. (2010). Asian Biotech: Ethics and Communities of Fate. Durham: Duke University Press. Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture. (2002). Report of the Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture: Second Session 18-20 March 2002. Rome: FAO Information Division. Plunkett, J. W. (2008). Plunketts Food Industry Almanac 2008: The Only Comprehensive Guide to Food Companies and Trends. Houston: Plunkett Research, Ltd. Popp, J. S., Matlock, M. D., Jahn, M. M. & Kemper, N. P. (2012). The Role of Biotechnology in a Sustainable Food Supply. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ProQuest. (2013). Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? Retrieved from http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php. Raju, K. D. (2007). Genetically Modified Organisms: Emerging Law and Policy in India. New Delhi: TERI Press. Reuters. (2014). French Ban on GMO Maize Cultivation gets Final Approval. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/05/france-gmo-idUSL6N0NR2MZ20140505. Reuters. (2014). French Lower House of Parliament Bans GM Maize Cultivation. Retrieved from http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/16/french-lower-house-of-parliament-bans-gm-maize-cultivation/. Sandhu, S. S. (2010). Recombinant DNA Technology. New Delhi: I.K. International Publishing House Pvt, Ltd. Stein, M. (2008). When Technology Fails: A Manual for Self-Reliance, Sustainability, and Surviving the Long Emergency. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. UNEP. (2006). Africa Environment Outlf.mcook 2: Our Environment, Our Wealth. Copenhagen: United Nations Office for Project Services. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2005). World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology: C O M E S T F o u r t h S e s s i o n 23 - 25 March 2005. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001405/140565e.pdf. United States Department of State. (1999). Country Reports on Economic Policy and Trade Practices: Report Submitted to the Committee on International Relations, Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations, Committee on Finance of the U.S. Senate. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weiss, E. B., Jackson, J. H. & Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. (2008). Reconciling Environment and Trade. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill Publishers. Whelan, E. (2001). Should We Grow GM Crops? Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html. Read More