|
 Sources show that a GMO must be approved in order “to permit its
entrance in the domestic market, both for cultivation and/or for
consumption.” If it is not approved, the product cannot be presented
to the country.
As noted by Guillaume P. Gručre who works with the International
Food Policy Research Institute, “Approval requirements vary widely
across countries, but there are two main approaches. One is the EU
(European Union) approach based on the ‘precautionary principle’,
which states that any product produced with, or derived from,
transgenic crops is subject to specific regulations and the
consumer’s ‘right to know.’ The second is the US attitude of
‘substantial equivalence,’ which exempts essentially equivalent
products from any specific requirements.”
According to a recent article by Sonia Go´mez-Galera et al., “EU
regulations forbid member states from preventing the import and
marketing of GMO-derived food products from overseas, which means
effectively that the EU is driving researchers overseas so that
products can be developed and commercialized outside Europe and then
imported back into the EU at a much-inflated cost. “
Though part of the EU, France has more restrictive rules concerning
GMOs due to many anti-GMO organizations. No GMO crops are grown
there, though they do import GMOs.
An update last spring from Foreign Law Specialist Nicolas Boring
explained that, “On May 5, 2014, a judge from France’s highest court
for administrative matters rejected a request from corn producers to
strike down a government regulation prohibiting the sale, use, and
growing of MON810 genetically modified corn. Furthermore, on that
same date, the French Parliament adopted a law banning that same
type of genetically modified corn.”
In addition to the EU, other major agri-food importers like Japan
(but not South Korea) display a relative restrictive GMO regulation,
while major exporters (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Ukraine)
have a “soft” regulation according to their comparative advantage in
the production of agricultural products. Finally, within the EU
countries there is a certain degree of variance. Countries such as
Austria and Italy “have imposed a de facto ban on the cultivation of
GM maize approved by the European Commission. Moreover, the majority
of Italian and Austrian regions are members of the European GMO-free
Regions Network.”
In her article “Are GMOs doomed on the global market?” Carolanne
Wright noted that some countries have taken a stance against GM
imports. For example, in November 2013, China banned imports of U.S.
corn after “genetically modified Bt protein (MIR162)” was
identified--costing more than “$4 billion in revenue losses for U.S.
corn and soybean industries.” Recent reports from Reuters show that
restrictions are beginning to ease. Russia has taken the strongest
stance against GMOs because of “legislation that would make the
illegal introduction of genetically modified crops into the country
a crime that is treated in a similar manner as terrorism.”
[to top of second column] |
The regulations in developing countries are less clear. As Vigani
and Olper state, “Many developing countries do not have clearly
defined GMO regulations. . . [and the ones that do] are often
incomplete or requirements are not specified. For example, in Mexico
and Vietnam the labeling of GMO ingredients is compulsory, but no
labeling threshold is defined and not well specified exemptions are
permitted.” Countries that do not have a “labeling threshold” could
have a “factual ban on GMO imports . . . [and] react with an overall
rejection of products containing GMOs,” but it is not proven. On the
other side are “regulations that specify a minimum threshold content
permit [and] GMO imports, even though the threshold is very
restrictive.” What results is often an overestimation of GMO
restrictions “in those countries where regulations are well
documented and comprehensive.”
Despite its restrictions, the European Union is very dependent on
imports of Genetically Engineered feed. The Directorate-General for
Agriculture and Rural Development has noted that “the EU imports a
lot of GE feed” in order to maintain their animal agriculture since
the EU cannot “produce most of the oilseed meal and other
protein-rich feedstuffs required to feed its livestock... In
addition, “98% of EU soybean meal is imported from Brazil, the USA,
and Argentina [and] 80% of this imported feed is GE. With these
imports, the EU “would only be able to replace 10-20% of imports by
high protein substitutes, resulting in a substantial reduction in
animal protein production, exports and consumption, and a very
significant increase in animal protein imports and cost in the EU.”
In summary, lobbyists and lawmakers in various nations have been
able to enact legislation in opposition to GMOs, but they are far
less effective in actually keeping GMOs out of the marketplace. It
remains to be seen whether the basic principles of supply and demand
will triumph over the resistance to biotechnology in global
agriculture.
References:
Directorate-General for Agriculture
and Rural Development. 2007. Economic impact of unapproved GMOs on
EU feed imports and livestock production.
http://ec.europa.eu /agriculture/envir/gmo/economic_impact
GMOs_en.pdf
Field trials and tribulations—making sense of the regulations for
experimental field trials of transgenic crops in Europe Sonia Go´
mez-Galera, Richard M. Twyman , Penelope A.C. Sparrow , Bart Van
Droogenbroeck , Rene´ Custers , Teresa Capell, and Paul Christou
Vigani, Mauro; Olper, Alessandro (2012) : GMO Standards, Endogenous
Policy and the Market for Information, LICOS Discussion Paper, No.
306
Nicholas Boring. Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organism:
France.
|
