Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 28
About This Presentation
Title:

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s)

Description:

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO s) Jennifer Takach Joshua Richter Natasha Simanich ITRN 603 Professor S. Malawer 8 March 2006 GMO Issue A brief background ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1612
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: internatio6
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s)


1
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
  • Jennifer Takach
  • Joshua Richter
  • Natasha Simanich

ITRN 603 Professor S. Malawer 8 March 2006
2
GMO Issue A brief background
  • Technological innovation and market integration
    have changed the global scene in a political,
    economical, and ecological aspect.
  • Changes involving technological innovation have
    brought about many ethical, legal, scientific,
    and institutional issues.

3
What is Genetically Modified?
The modification of the genetic characteristics
of a microorganism, plant or animal by inserting
a modified gene or a gene from another variety or
species.
  • Food Organisms
  • Crops
  • Livestock
  • Fish
  • Non-food applications
  • Forestry
  • Horticulture

4
Associated Risks of GMOs
5
Associated Benefits of GMOs
6
International Law on GMOs
7
WTO Agreements Involved in the Dispute
  • Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures
    Agreement
  • Articles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the Agreement
  • GATT 1994
  • Articles I, III, X, and XI
  • Agreement on Agriculture
  • Article 4
  • Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement
  • Articles 2 and 5

8
Codex the SPS Agreement
  • Codex Alimentarius Commission - -
  • Establishes food and safety standards within the
    SPS
  • Provides a burden of proof on scientific data
  • Agrees upon various ways of reducing risk
  • Provides consistency in risk management decisions
  • Establishing expert scientific guidance
  • Adds to the SPS Agreement
  • Agreed upon international food and safety
    standards
  • Establishes scientific guidelines
  • Leaves room for interpretation through burden of
    proof and different ways of reducing risk

9
The Complainants
  • United States
  • Canada
  • Argentina
  • Case Filed in 2003
  • EU had an unfair 6 year moratorium.
  • Not scientifically justified
  • Violates SPS
  • Oppose EU food labeling and traceability
    regulations.

10
(No Transcript)
11
The Respondent
  • European Union
  • every country has the sovereign right to make
    its own decisions on GMOs in accordance with the
    values prevailing in society.
  • 2004 Labeling and Traceability Rules

12
Panel Formation
  • August 29th, 2003 Single panel established by
    the DSB.
  • March 4th, 2004 Director-General composed the
    panel.
  • The decision due date has been postponed numerous
    times for various reasons
  • More time for countries to prepare rebuttals.
  • Panels decision to seek scientific and technical
    experts.
  • Panel to finalize their report.
  • Currently, the due date of the official decision
    from the Panel is the end of March 2006.

13
Panels Unofficial Ruling
  • February 7th, 2006 Announced that the 6 year
    moratorium was a trade violation.
  • Final decision will officially be announced later
    this year.
  • Still concern over how the EU will handle this
    decision.
  • U.S. concerns with labeling.
  • E.U. grocery stores stance.

14
Current Trade and Related Issues
  • Current WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures)
    SPS Agreement applies to risks from additives,
    contaminants, toxins or disease-causing
    organisms, and it is not clear if potential risks
    from GMO foods fit into one of those
    categories(hard to have scientific certainty)
  • Trade issues on global level result from
    different regulations in different countries
  • Institutional issues
  • WHO CAN SAY WHAT IS BEST FOR SOCIETY?

15
Current Trade and Related Issues
  • The benefits of GM Technology is not yet reality
    (most agricultural production happens in
    developed countries)
  • Few GMO products so far benefit consumers
  • Harder for developing countries to use GMO crops
    on small scale farming

16
GMOs in the NATIONAL Interest
US Interests in GMO Exports
  • Trade and Economic Related - -
  • US Patent Protection on Bio-engineering
  • Access to markets (US is the single major
    producer of biotech products)
  • As a result, US Corn Soybean exports are
    threatened (high GMO content)
  • Unscientific Trade Restrictions
  • Regulatory Oversight - -
  • Crops and food products are regulated by 14
    separate laws in the U.S. alone!
  • Farmers Producers - -
  • GMO and non-GMO crops are combined in the crop
    handling systems to separate would be costly
    and in some cases impossible
  • Not only crops but food products could be
    effected
  • Labeling tracing regulations are not necessary
    and are misleading

17
GMOs in the NATIONAL Interest
  • The Science - -
  • GMOs are as safe as natural counterparts
  • Supported by 3200 international scientists
    (including 20 Nobel Laureates)
  • 81 EU research projects resulted in no greater
    risk of GMOs than conventional counterparts
  • Food aid is the same content as what US consumers
    eat!
  • The benefits of GMOs - -
  • Reduction in use of pesticides, increased
    productivity, more crops yields on less land
  • Environmental and ecological testing is completed
    before commercialization of GMOs
  • Bringing vital food and vitamin resources to
    poor/starving nations
  • International Benefits - -
  • Feed the poor stop food hunger!

18
GMOs One European Reaction
  • It is so much simpler to condemn something than
    to attempt to understand it. We have a fine
    tradition in Europe of burning those people we
    do not understand, whether they be witches or
    heretics, for it is much easier to do this than
    to try and understand them.

J.E. Beringer EC-sponsored research on Safety of
Genetically Modified Organisms School of
Biological Sciences, University of Bristol (UK),
19
GMOs - - INTERNATIONAL Interests
International Interests in GMO Scientific Research
  • Trade and Economic Related - -
  • Rights of Farmers to have access to genetic
    resources and biotech benefits
  • Scientific studies not conclusive enough in the
    emerging science
  • Concern over Monopolization
  • Regulatory Oversight - -
  • Labeling for consumer choice and benefit
  • Traceability standards in every step of the
    process
  • Emerging laws and regulations dealing with the
    scientific principles and dissemination of GMO
    products

20
GMOs - - INTERNATIONAL Interests
  • The Science - -
  • Long-term effects unknown
  • Allergenicity Antimicrobial resistance
  • Creation of new species as a result of modern
    science
  • Farmers Consumers - -
  • Causal Non-GMO food scares in Europe in
    mid-1990s
  • Public Health Safety may be effected by unknown
    risks
  • Lack of Knowledge in LDCs

21
Proposed Solution
  • Moratorium was a violation of fair trade laws.
  • EU has a right to regulate and monitor
    agricultural products.
  • Feasible Timeline Needed.
  • Traceability Agreement.
  • Label Agreement.
  • Educate EU citizens on GM food benefits.
  • US has a right (under WTO trade rules) to access
    EU markets with agricultural products.
  • Internationally recognized health, food, and
    safety standards (Codex _at_ WTO) in order to
    reasonably conclude risk assessments and benefits
    of GMOs.

22
Food For Thought
  • The following international consumers to a recent
    Washington State University study found that they
    are in favor of GMO products and crops if the
    benefit is enhanced nutrients (although their
    knowledge of risks associated with GMO is
    directly related to their response)
  • Chile
  • Mexico
  • India

23
Afterthoughts
  • Technological advances have assisted with
    productivity levels, food and production
    resources, and environmentally safe products.
  • There are risks associated with GMOs, however,
    can be scientifically reduced.
  • Many international standards on food safety that
    may be counter to what national standards exist.
  • Benefits of GMOs yet to be realized by LDCs.
  • Increased Consumer awareness programs Labeling
    / education.
  • Despite WTO ruling that GMO restrictions are in
    violation of the trade agreements, there is still
    much uncertainty as to the length of this dispute.

24
Conclusion Implications
  • Scientific data is now a part of trade disputes.
  • There is no scientific evidence either way which
    makes GMOs so controversial.
  • The EU has taken the precautionary approach and
    doesn't want to include GMOs until proven safe.
  • The US claims that science can not progress until
    is being applied.

What does the future hold?
25
Discussion Question - Labeling
  • Do you think that the EU should be allowed to
    label GM food at their grocery stores?
  • How would labeling effect consumers and GMO
    producers?

26
Works Cited
  • Ahearn, Raymond, US-European Union Trade
    Relations Issues and Policy Changes, 23
    December 2004, Congressional Research Service,
    pg. 9-10.
  • BBC News. QA Trade battle of GM food.
    February 8th, 2006.
  • http//newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/n
    ews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4690010.stm
  • Beringer, J. E., EC-Sponsored Research on Safety
    of Genetically Modified Organisms, Data Sheet
  • http//europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life
    /gmo/general-intro.html
  • Borak, Donna. WTO Rules against EU on GMOs
    Washington Post. February 8, 2006.
  • http//binas.unido.org/binas/regs.php
  • Concerns Over Biotechnology Challenge US
    Agricultural Exports, General Accountability
    Office, GAO-01-727
  • Evaluation of Codex, Codex Alimentarius,
  • www.codexalimenatrius.net/web/evaluation_en.jsp
  • Larson, Alan P., Discussion on the WTO Case on
    the EU Biotech Moratorium, Foreign Affairs Press
    Release, 14 may 2003,
  • http//fpc.state.gov/fpc/20557.htm

27
Works Cited
  • Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. August
    2004.
  • http//pewagbiotech.org/resources/factsheets/displ
    ay.php3?FactsheetID2
  • Questions and Answers on U.S. Food Aid Donations
    Containing Bio-Engineered Crops, Fact Sheet, US
    Agency for International Development, 10 January
    2003,
  • www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/16736.htm
  • Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of
    plant origins joint FAO/WHO, World Health
    Organization, 29 May 2 June 2000, pgs. 12-14,
    49.
  • www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/ec_jun
    e2000/en/index.html
  • Siv, Sichan, Bio-Engineered Crops, Statement at
    the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 27
    August 2002.
  • www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/2002/13587.htm
  • World Trade Organization. Dispute Settlement
    DS291.
  • http//www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_
    e/ds291_e.htm
  • 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods,
    World Health Organization, Question 13 Question
    17
  • www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20ques
    tions/en/index.html

28
(No Transcript)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com