Controversy continues over safety standards for biotechnology products such as genetically modified (GM) crops. Although benefits have been documented for a number of GM crops, most developing countries have denied permission to plant GM seeds.

Effective national biosafety systems can assess the safety of GM crops and also encourage the growth of domestic biotechnologies and access to new products and technologies. Governments face the enormous challenge of coming up with national biosafety systems which can balance public policy goals, address perceptions of safety and risk and reflect economic, political and technical realities. However, policymakers have been developing biosafety guidelines from an short-term perspective.

This fragmented approach reflects the caution with which most developing countries are reacting to GM products. A paper from the International Food Policy Research Institute in the US reviews progress in six countries to suggest a framework for regulatory decision-making which could improve GM safety approval procedures.

To date, decision-making has been painfully slow. Even among states that could be leading GM crop development – such as Kenya, Brazil, India, and China – few GM varieties have been approved, despite advocacy by scientists, agricultural ministries and private seed companies. Chinese laboratories have applied GM techniques to over 50 different plant species, including rice, corn and soybeans. However, Brazil is the only one of these four to have given official approval to the planting of any GM varieties of food or feed crops.

The authors note that:

• The absence of efficient regulatory frameworks is holding back investments in biotechnology.
• There is confusion among those involved as biosafety policy and practice can change frequently, especially regarding GM crop commercialisation or release decisions.
• Farmers’ seed choices are limited by a lack of understanding.
• Farmers have no way to communicate their ideas during regulatory review and national debates.
• Decisions and actions are frequently taken outside the formal regulatory system as politicians or civil servants respond to advocacy or judicial appeals. As a result, the decisions of scientific review committees are often arbitrarily overruled.
• Commercial release decisions of GM crops are affected by broader trade considerations, especially the different GM policies of the European Union and the US.

The authors call for strong and compatible regulatory systems, more resources, scientific risk assessment and efforts to advance public acceptance of GM crops and technology transfer. This requires states to:

• provide resources to develop the scientific knowledge and skills available for regulatory review and decision-making
• clarify the purpose of biosafety reviews, outline a clear ‘road map’ of approval processes and improve biosafety procedures and decisions
• spread information on GM crops and work more closely with national and international bodies to create databases of GM food applications
• clearly define the responsibilities of those involved in environmental, food safety and marketing reviews
• listen to farmers’ opinions on GM crops and consider the actual effects on trade
• build public awareness of GM food benefits.

A comprehensive and well-resourced framework for biosafety implementation, focused on efficiency and transparency, could be used by decision-makers to address the regulation of GM crops adequately.

Source(s):
‘Unlocking crop biotechnology in developing countries: a report from the field,’ by Joel I. Cohen and Robert Paarlberg , World Development, Volume 32, Issue 9 , September 2004, pp 1563-1577

id21 Research Highlight: 11 April 2005

Further Information:
Joel I. Cohen
Program for Biosafety Systems
International Food Policy Research Institute
2033 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002
USA

Tel: +1 (0) 202 862 5600
Fax: +1 (0) 202 467 4439
Contact the contributor: J.Cohen@cgiar.org

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

www.joelcohen.org

Robert Paarlberg
Political Science
Wellesley College
Pendleton Hall East 235
106 Central St.
Wellesley, MA 02481
USA

Tel: +1 781 283 2193
Fax: +1 781 283 3644
Contact the contributor: rpaarlbe@wellesley.edu

Wellesley College, USA

Other related links:
'Debating GM crops'

'Making international biotechnology agreements work in India and China'

'Biotechnology politics in Delhi’s corridors of power'

'Bt cotton – good news for farmers in developing countries?'

'GM crops: friend or foe?'

GM food information from WHO