Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic
(Copyright @ 2010 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).
by Chester B. Cabalza
The paper of Reynaldo E. dela Cruz, entitled “Implications and Issues in the Implementation of GMO Labeling Regulations,” tackles both the boon and bane caused by the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as prescription for many third world countries aimed into resolving the rampant issues of poverty and hunger as alternative means to foster and strengthen food security. However, this recommendation is very western-oriented in nature, following the pronouncements made by American Nobel peace prize laureate and father of Green Revolution, Norman Ernest Borlaug, who thought that his revolutionary work in agronomy and cereal technology will increase food production in Asia and Africa.
It cannot be denied though, that one of the main objectives of the GMOs, is to boost food production - praised by many Caucasian scientists, entrepreneurs, and policy-makers for genuinely promoting scientific feat on modern biotechnology which gave birth to new discoveries and innovations in a plethora of fields ranging from medicine and pharmaceuticals to fisheries and agriculture.
Assuming that about nine billion people are expected to inhabit the planet 40 years from now, and mostly are from Asia and Africa, because Europeans are aging now, this growth forecast is giving rise to the question how the growing number of people will be fed. For scientists who subscribe to the boon of modern biotechnology through enhancements of GMOs see no problem at all. For them, the way out of the current impasse and toward meeting future requirements is in the deployment of genetic engineering. But the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in its recent statements, I believe so do not share this view. The UNFAO still deems that an over-dependence on genetically modified organisms to boost agricultural production eclipses other biotechnologies and their potential to benefit poor farmers in developing countries.
In his paper, the author stresses that despite the success borne by GMOs among consumers, many anti-biotechnology organizations failed to support its progress. With this argument I must deem that many concerned consumers are upholding its moral consequences to nature and humanity, concerning environmental, health, and biodiversity degradation issues.
Although admittedly, most poor nations currently lack appropriate and useful technologies, policies, technical capacities, and the necessary infrastructure for the development, evaluation and deployment of biotechnologies – acquiring GMO biotechnologies for poor countries will not solve this lengthy stricken problem.
More so, the debate encompassing GMOs often hinders the development of other agriculture biotechnologies where there is no controversy about their environmental impacts and the benefits to small producers, as well as their important role in mitigating and adapting to climate change.
But part of the preventive measures discussed in the paper are highly scientific that are inked through international trade agreements by giving teeth for GMO labeling, and calling for the enforcement of the Cartagena Protocol signed at Montreal in Canada; the implementation of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and the confusing execution of the Precautionary Principle (PP) over the Precautionary Approach (PA), whether it is binding among member- countries of the United Nations for its legal application courtesy of international laws.
Much of my appreciation for this paper is the weight given in distinguishing the commonalities and differences of the precautionary principle, developed for environmental policy, over the precautionary approach, aimed at taking action to protect health or the environment, even before there is conclusive scientific evidence that harm is occurring, as attested by an American scientist. In other words, what the precautionary principle is talking about, involves innovative thinking to keep pace with a changing world.
As presented in the paper, most of the initiatives from the concept of Substantive Equivalence (SE) to other conventions aimed at alleviating the status of modern biotechnology are basically Euro-centric. Meaning that since most European countries are affected on the consequences bought by the GM products, GMO labeling has been a major concern for them, unlike in Asia where labeling of GM foods is not much a pressing issue at the moment.
Part of my assessment on this paper by looking at the implications of GMO labeling regulations can also be political in nature. The art of international relations are being played here. It seems that most of those afraid of the effects of GMOs are European countries. This old-rich economic bloc of the European Union (EU) is powerful in the international arena, oftentimes robed with primordial authority to dictate policies concerning their wants and by using UN instruments to address pressing issues on GMOs, they themselves have initiated and prescribed, for poor countries to adopt as their mechanisms to defeat poverty.
Along with this argument, there is now global issue whether GMO labeling policies should be universally imposed since more GM foods are traded rapidly across countries and continents, following the three choices offered in this paper, namely: mandatory, voluntary, or no labeling at all. This however, brings misleading notions among concerned organizations and nation-states, since this policy has incurred various ethical, moral, and political grounds avowed in the paper.
Say, for example, Australia and New Zealand lead mandatorily labeled goods entering its territories; the ASEAN bloc attempted to follow the same suit however it failed but with the great exception of Japan as an Asian power; Switzerland, on the hand, also wants mandatory labeling. Likewise, the United States exercising its hegemonic power on this issue, also agrees to mandatory labeling. At the end, this labeling issue will remain to be a hindrance in trade negotiations subject to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. As usual, there is yet no absolute choice used by all nation-states, since each economies and biosafety regulations differ, respectively.
The issue of food safety is also addressed in this paper, however, the standards set for this measurement is again very western-oriented following the American principles. But it is a general knowledge among us, that superior food technology mastered by Japanese for centuries, and by other nationalities, for that matter must be brought into cognizance.
My belief that aside from the obvious economic benefits that genetically engineered (GE) crops offer to farmers, pessimists and critics remain concerned about the long-term health effects for consumers and the environmental impact of GMO crops, arguing that 14 years is an inadequate length of time to determine what the long-term impacts of the move to GMO crops will be. Hence, GMO crops have become commonplace in North America, Latin America and parts of Asia since their introduction, but Europe remains reluctant to jump on the GE bandwagon.
I also would want to note that in this paper, it has slightly covered the significant role played by multinational companies (MNCs) in the propagation of GE products. In reality, these multinationals monopolizing the field of GM products for global consumption are made and owned by Caucasians. But I agree with the thoughts of the author on his analysis that labeling is both effective and ineffective tools in educating consumers and changing consumption behaviors, unless respective governments of each country will properly implement commendable standards, testing, certification, and enforcement services for these GE products.
Hence, I believe that precautionary measures are made and international conventions are inked by world leaders to take advantage on the contributions of science and technology, however, social implications should also be considered whether this will truly resolve pressing issues suffered by the majority of the population in the world and not only the few elite citizens of rich countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment