GMOs, safety concerns and international trade: developing countries' perspective

• Published date: 13 September 2011
• Pages: 281-307
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/14770021111165535
• Date: 13 September 2011
• Author: Lekha Laxman,Abdul Haseeb Ansari
• Subject Matter: Economics

GMOs, safety concerns and

international trade: developing

countries’ perspective

Lekha Laxman

Department of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,

Johor Bahru, Malaysia, and

Abdul Haseeb Ansari

AIKOL, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to provide an in-depth discussion on the impact of agricultural

biotechnology in developing and least developed countries (LDCs) as well as the concomitant biosafety

concerns that might have an impact on trade and the environment whilst highlighting the importance

of choosing development pathways that are conducive to the specif‌ic needs of these nations without

endangering the biodiversity and affecting people’s health.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper adopts a socio-legal approach by undertaking a

content analysis of decided cases, relevant treaties and existing studies conducted in areas related to

agricultural biotechnology within the framework of sustainable development imperatives.

Findings – The paper suggests that developing countries venturing into agricultural biotechnology

need to enrich the technology according to their needs and capabilities in order to be able to weigh the

benef‌its against the risks in the production and import of genetically modif‌ied organisms (GMOs)

specif‌ically via the implementation of the “precautionary principle” and viable “risk assessment”

techniques which conform to their existing international law obligations in view of the f‌indings that

most of these nations have not formulated adequate legal and institutional frameworks supported with

the necessary expertise to regulate, monitor, and ensure safety of agricultural GMOs produced and/or

imported by them.

Practical implications – The issues and suggestions in this paper will enable the development

process of developing and least developed economies to conform to the tenets of sustainable

development and minimize the loss of Earth’s biodiversity.

Originality/value – The paper is of practical use to stakeholders and policymakers alike venturing

into agricultural biotechnology. It pools the f‌indings of a cross-section of studies to look at the

implications therein and the arising biosafety and trade issues with special reference to developing

and LDCs.

Keywords Sustainabledevelopment, Biodiversity, Biosafety,Agricultural biotechnology,GM crops,

Genetic modif‌ication,International trade, Developingcountries

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

History has taught us that the development of mankind occurs at a costly price as

economically short-term gains induced activities inevitably damage natural

environment in such a way that its essential ecological functions are impaired. Science

and technology have brought tremendous changes in the quality of life that we warrant

today facilitating us to undertake simple tasks with such ease and broadening our

understanding and knowledge in many areas of our lives. Nevertheless, our inadequate

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-0024.htm

GMOs and

international

trade

281

Journal of International Trade Law

and Policy

Vol. 10 No. 3, 2011

pp. 281-307

qEmerald Group Publishing Limited

1477-0024

DOI 10.1108/14770021111165535

understanding of the complexities of life forms and their interactions with environment

and the undiscovered benef‌its make it crucial for us to exercise due care while dealing

with developing and trading in genetically modif‌ied organisms (GMOs) that is

continuing to expand otherwise there might be irreversible loss to the biodiversity

incurable diseases to the human mass (Lee, 2001). It has been pointed out that the

environmental degradation of the twenty-f‌irst century may equal or exceed the losses

of its predecessors (Lee, 2001). These events have been aptly referred to by

Weiss (1990, p. 198) as “the growth of transnational environmental harm” which she

pointed out as simultaneously “leading to new obligations between the states” whilst

“recasting democratic accountability for the cross boundary performance of public and

private actors”. Multilateral environmental and other agreements ref‌lect the urgency of

addressing the problem of rapid environmental degradation mostly brought about by

unsustainable development practices by all nations in various degrees, including

production and consumption of safe GMOs. At the Earth Summit held on June 13, 1992 in

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, a forum was held for developing a plan of action to confront

and overcome the most pressing environmental, health, and social problem issues

facing the planet and a consensus was f‌inally reached on the need to maintain the

ecological integrity of the Earth’s global and local eco-systems. Of which, Agenda 21 is

the agreement adopted by virtually every nation on the Earth thereby creating an

unprecedented global partnership to reverse the environmental degradation of the

planet. It was also emphasized by Principle 15 the Rio Declaration. It is, thus, imperative

for the global community to show solidarity at this critical moment in history and seek a

new beginning – this compels us to move away from destructive habits and practices

that not only deplete the global environment’s f‌inite resources but threatens the very

foundation of global security which is wrought with dangers of war, social and economic

injustice as well as environmental devastation (The Earth Council, 2000).

The process of rapid development inevitably occurs at the expense of biodiversity

and general environmental degradation. Loss of biodiversity which are occurring in

many parts of the globe at a rapid pace can be measured by loss of plant and animal

species and microorganisms. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),

all member states are required to take measures to preserve both native and agricultu ral

biodiversity. Agricultural biodiversity encompasses the variety and variability of

animals, plants, and microorganisms which are necessary to sustain key functions of the

agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes for, and in support of, food production and

food security (Mulvany, 2001, p. 1). There is a growing recognition that biodi versity

conservation is one of the pillars of sustainable development and that it should be

integrated into the overall development process (Kumari et al., 1997). It is for this reason

that in 2002 world leaders attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development

in Johannesburg addressed biological diversity issues (Chapter IV, paragraph 44 of the

Johannesburg Plan of Implementation) and agreed to achieve, by 2010:

[...] a signif‌icant reduction in the rate of loss of biodiversity at global, regional and national

levels as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benef‌it of all life on Earth.

This endorsement was in line with what was adopted at the sixth meeting of the CBD

Conference of Parties. This commitment was reiterated at the 2005 World Summit. The

2010 biodiversity target is now fully integrated into the framework of the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) and, as a sign of further support, the international

JITLP

10,3

282