Genetically Modified Organisms - Essay Example

Sub topic Page Introduction: 2 Biological Meddling: 2-3 Diplomatic and Ethical Considerations: 3-4 Prohibitive Trade Laws and Policies: 4-5 Wrong Regulatory Approach: 5-6 Failure to Adhere to Protocols: 6-7 References: 8-9 Transatlantic Dispute over GMO Regulations Introduction There has in the past been a row over the regulations of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) or Genetically Engineered Organisms (GEO), where different factors have been quoted by different stakeholders. The most notable of the stake holders have been United States, Canada, and Argentina, which have brought about consultations aimed at straightening the disputes, with the European Community (EU), under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and in respect to the "Moratorium for Regulations and Approval of Biotech Products" (Pipe SW 2008, pg 11) Based on the fact that the whole issue of GMOs rotates around a process where an organism has its genetic material altered using genetic techniques is in itself a cause for concern on the production, storage as well as the sale of the same. This therefore brings about the question over the possible reasons that bring about transatlantic disputes over GMO regulation. The dispute mainly originates from the European Union's modalities on regulatory programs addressing GMOs, the international legal requirements governing GMOs, differences in legal bases on the parts of the complaining parties, different perceptions of the relevant precedents in World Trade Organization, and considerations of the likely outcomes and the long term implications as a result of embracing or rejecting different regulatory measures. (Linda JB, Milne R 2007, pg 113) Biological Meddling Many countries such as United Kingdom have held the view that stands on the regulation of GMO, where arguments have been that the generation and use of GMOs as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved overlong periods of time. Other concerns that stand as stumbling blocks to harmonization of regulations of GMOs have been the limitation of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulations. (S.D. Murphy 2008, pg 47) According to Murphy (2008, pg 47), the row on the harmonization of the regulations that should govern GMOs in the transatlantic region will not be resolved until the question on the safety of GMOs in the food chain has been answered. The dispute is between those who do, and those who do not wish to critically look into the concerns such as the possibilities that GMOs could introduce new allergens into foods, or even contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance. Those who are against such concerns base their case on the fact that scientists have assured consumers of the safety of these types of crops and organisms, whereas those who are opposed to the same mainly base their arguments on the resistance by environmental activists who claim that they are unnatural and therefore unsafe. This has brought about difficulties in the adoption of laws that require safety testing of any new organism produced for human consumption (Walter J. & Thiele F, 2008, pg 600) Diplomatic and Ethical Considerations Due to the unpopular state that the adoption of GMOs is in most transatlantic countries, any attempts to woo countries in accepting any beneficial regulatory measures have hit a snag. For instance, Patrick Mulvany, as a chairman of the UK Food Group is in record accusing some Governments, especially the United States under the Bush administration, of using genetically modified food aid as a way of disposing unwanted agricultural surpluses. The United Nations, which plays a major role in the regulations of the GMOs, blamed food companies and accused them of violating human rights, terming it as a tool by some profit-driven firms that needed to be regulated by their Governments (Stanley S.A & Anthony G. 2008, pg 444) The international Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has tried to contribute in the regulation of the Genetically Modified Foods, but the results have been inconsistent, owing to the same diplomatic considerations. This is at the heart of the transatlantic dispute because the development and the implementation of policies designed to encourage private investments in research and marketing of biotechnology aimed at meeting the needs of poverty stricken nations, increasing research on the problems faced by those countries as well as ways of using GMOs in curbing those problems have been refused by many of the poor countries. This lack of diplomatic willingness to have the situation regulated has left many European scientists disturbed because those political factors and ideologies have continued to prevent unbiased assessment of the GM technology, which makes it hard for proper regulations and consequent negative effects on the whole community (Hoffmann D 2007) Prohibitive Trade Laws and Policies According to (Pauline, R, 2007, pg 510), the dispute over GMOs between the United States, Argentina and Canada, as complaining parties and the European Communities as respondent is basically on the trade law and policy. In particular is the application of the World trade Organization agreement on the application of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards to a regulatory system that requires Governmental approval of new products before they enter into commerce. Many national Governments use such schemes for approval to other products besides GMOs, such as human drugs, but the dispute between those domestic frameworks make it uncomfortable from both a structural and a legal point of view. As a result, countries like United Sates, has sought to characterize the multiple applications for a sound regulatory body as a single measure in the form of a general moratorium, a characterization which lacks textual basis in the World Trade Organization's suite of agreements and also risks further distorting the application of the trade agreement to a variety of distinct procedural contexts, i.e. approval, disapproval, and delay as well as the applications being treated with substantially divergent attributes. (Pauline, R, 2007, pg 513) The GMO regulation's dispute is also prevalent due to lack of a more nuanced treatment of precaution than found in the Appellate Body's prior jurisprudence on the GMO regulation subject. Additional issues of first impression include the scope of the trade agreement due to the existing policies that should apply to a measure with multiple motivations, protection of public health, as well as protection of preservation of the ecosystem integrity. In this case, the regulatory bodies fail to confine applications of the agreement through segmentation of the GMO component pieces of the measures at issue depending on the purpose. (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2008, pg 822) Wrong Regulatory Approach According to (Linda JB, Milne R 2007, pg 45), the issue of Biotechnology acquires a wrong dimension in terms of applicability in part as a result of differences in national regulatory approaches. International response can be considered as consequences or artifacts of attempts by national governments to harmonize domestic regulatory strategies for biotechnology. The wrong regulatory approach for trade ins as well as market access for genetically engineered products can then be understood as one of the major driving forces behind hindrances faced in the market. Linda (2007, pg 47) commented, "There is need for international standard -setting processes designed to overcome or harmonize national disparities to address a variety of regulatory strategies for biotechnology". For instance, the regulation has failed in spite of attempts by different organizations such as the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety that was a legally binding regulatory body that sought an international agreement to be adopted in January 2000 as ancillary instrument to the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. After entry into force in 2003/04, a meeting held in Kuala Lumpur, aimed at having the European Communities ratify the biotechnology regulations saw some countries such as USA failing to sign it. Failure to Adhere to Protocols Different countries that form the transatlantic courtiers ostensibly fail to honor protocols aimed at streamlining the regulations of the GMOs, in spite of being parts and parcels of the formulators of those protocols. Many wealthy countries such as America have opted for formulation of different protocols that would see to the Advanced Informed Agreement" (IAA). In this regard, the protocol requires as a first step in the IAA process advance notice to the Country of import before the first exportation of a living modified organism (LMO). The state of import, then has right to permit, deny or impose conditions on the importation of the LMO in question, and must make sure that a risk assessment has been done. Some poorer countries have found that point as a limiting factor given the varied perceptions on the matter. (Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety, 29 Jan. 2007) The other major aspect of the bio-safety protocol concerns the establishment of a bio-safety Clearing house, designed to facilitate the exchange of scientific , environmental, technical and legal information on, and experience with, living modified organisms, with particular attention to the needs of developing and poorer countries. Unfortunately, the poorer and developing countries that are intended to be assisted in that regard are either unwilling or un-cooperative. The Protocol also regulates trans-boundary movement of the GMOs and LMOs that may have adverse effects on the conservations and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also to account the risks likely to bring about to human health. As LMOs intended for food, processing or feed, the Bio-safety Clearing house must be notified within fifteen days of a decision concerning domestic use, inclusive also of domestic marketing which has potential for exportation (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2008) References Michael SA, Astah M (2004). Gene Gun Trans-infection of Animal Cells and Genetic Immunization. Methods Cell Biol. 12: 353-65 Pipe SW 2008. Genetically Modified Organisms Trade Regulatory Manifests. (5): 840-50. S.D. Murphy 2008. Biotechnology and International Law Harvard International Law Journal 42, pg. 47. Linda JB, Milne R 2007. European Union's modalities Biology Today 11, pg 111-115 Linda JB, Milne R 2007. Handling of Recombinant Growth Hormone Biology Today (9) pg 43-50 Pauline, R, 2007. Biotechnology and trade Laws Reviews Biology and Law (7): 501-13. Stanley S.A & Anthony G. 2008. Coagulation factor concentrates: past, present, And future. Regulations Pick (13): 439-48. Hoffmann D 2007. Review of Genetically Modified Streptococcus Treaties for the Prevention of Dental Caries. Antonia Van Leeuwenhoek 82 (1): 361-6. Walter J. & Thiele F, 2008. Scientific Thought on Biological Diversity Workable Legal Materials. 7 (4): 593-605. Alfred Fugger & Minter P (2006). Transgenic Hydra allows in vivo tracking of individual stem cells during morphogenesis. Progressive Developments (16): 28-33 Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety, 29 Jan. 2007. International Legal Materials (39), pg. 1027. Convention on Biological Diversity, 2008, International Legal Materials 31 pg. 822 Read More