Suchergebnisse

During the last sixteen years biotechnology, genetic engineering, transgenic organisms or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been raising numerous controversies. In the scientific sphere, genetic engineering and GMOs represent a special challenge for geneticists, breeders and physicians, in philosophy it is a topic of interest for bioethicists and agricultural ethicists, environmentalists are interested in the interconnectictions between new technology and environment protection, for multinational companies this is a potential source of huge profits, and for certain governments they represent an instrument for strategic control of food production within their countries as well as internationally. By taking into account the views of both advocates and opponents of this "revolutionary" method, authors believe that we should not a priori reject new and insufficiently studied technologies, but that in this particular it is necessary to be extremely cautious, in other words that from (bio)ethical point of view only those GMO investigations limited to scientific purposes are justified, provided that all required precautions have been taken. Also, authors are of the opinion that in this region as well as in Europe as a whole, at this moment, transgenic organisms are not necessery, neither in agricultural production nor in the food chain. Arguments for such a statement are found primarily in the potential issues that intentional breeding of GMOs might inflict upon the human health and environment. Namely, if borders of individual species are not overstepped and if their endogenous traits are made stronger, the potential risk of causing irreparable damage for both present and future generations which may be brought by changed biological succession will be reduced, i.e. one of the four fundamental bioethical principles will be applied and that is the nonmaleficence. Further intentional decreasing of biodiversity should not be allowed, which means that it is necessary to respect as much as it is possible the complexity of the very nature, its autonomy and "otherness".

The aim of this paper is to present the composition and functioning of the EU institutions involved in receiving, analysing, approval or rejection of the application for the use of genetically modified organisms. The manner of participation of each institution is presented by using the comparative and historical method, as well as the method of analysis. The advantage of these methods is a detailed analysis of the rights and responsibilities of all participants in the approval process for genetically modified organisms. The paper analyses all the EU institutions that are directly or indirectly associated with the approval procedure, and those are: European Food Safety Authority, European Parliament, European Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union. The problem of the whole institutional framework is an insufficient contribution of the constituent activity of the EU member states and their national authorities and whole process should be based more on the principle of subsidiarity.

The aim of this paper is to present the composition and functioning of the EU institutions involved in receiving, analysing, approval or rejection of the application for the use of genetically modified organisms. The manner of participation of each institution is presented by using the comparative and historical method, as well as the method of analysis. The advantage of these methods is a detailed analysis of the rights and responsibilities of all participants in the approval process for genetically modified organisms. The paper analyses all the EU institutions that are directly or indirectly associated with the approval procedure, and those are: European Food Safety Authority, European Parliament, European Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union. The problem of the whole institutional framework is an insufficient contribution of the constituent activity of the EU member states and their national authorities and whole process should be based more on the principle of subsidiarity.

The main purpose of my article is to discuss what GMOs are, the controversies about this specific issue and the related regulations that are put forward by the authorities. GMOs are genetically altered organisms which have been widely produced and breeded in certain parts of the world. According to some experts, this special practice of agriculture emerged in order to put an end to famine and prevent food scarcity. As growing GMOs seems to be more convenient than the traditional farming, it is more eligible to produce food in large scale which will be a fine solution for food scarcity. However, there are some oppositions to the GMOs. It is strongly believed that the real causes of famine is not related to production, it is a problem of distribution of food. Moreover, patenting the seeds leads to an unstoppable control and dominance over food by the private enterprises. Therefore, the opponents state that the aims of these companies are solely financial gain and monopolisation in food production. Patenting the seeds is another arguable issue. It poses a great threat for the organic farmers since GMO seeds can contaminate the others through natural ways. This is not the only danger that organic farmers face with; thay can also be sued by the GMO producers for this unintended exposure to GMO seeds. Not only the diminishing of the variety of species but also the possible adverse effects of GMOs on human health create a debate between the two groups. These are not the only topics that are open to discussion. In addition to these, labelling the products creates a huge problem among the poorly educated consumers as they have not been clearly regulated in some countries. Hence, this subject having such a close connection to human health cannot be ignored by the law. In fact, a number of countries have enacted legislation in order to regulate this sensitive field. Turkey, having been dependent on the import of the agricultural goods for a period of time, has to join these countries with a recent legislation. All these contemporary issues for Turkey will be highlighted in my article.

Local government requires a regulatory framework as a base of Genetically Modified Organisms' (GMO) development and expansion in order to support food sovereignty. In regions of Indonesia, GMO products could be strengthened through local certification. The involvement of the government is vital in supporting the economical activities of entrepreneurs in certain regions. Researchers are interested in further discussion on, "Local Certification: Genetically Modified Organisms' Commercialization". The studies focus on the urgency for local certification in GMO products and the commercialization of local certification towards GMO Products of region in Indonesia. This is normative research through a statute approach, which concerns legal basis for local government authority regarding agricultural products' affairs. The research suggested that urgency for local certification in every region is very much needed to bolster food production with GMO technology base as part of the geographical index product. In the implementation amongst society, the product could be supervised and developed to enhance local and national economic activities by paying attention to the quality of genetically modified products and its food safety. GMO commercialization is still constrained by permit on feed, food and environmental safety. Therefore, the Indonesian Government's protection on GMO product commercialization is required, both from national and local governments through a local certification. The practice upon food local certification is implemented in several regions of Indonesia, such as West Sumatra by establishing an institution; Kebumen Regency by forming a food certification related regulation and Palembang City also by applying food certification.

This paper frames genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as invasive species. This offers a way of considering the reception, diffusion and management of GMOs in the foodscape. "An invasive non-native species is any non-native animal or plant that has the ability to spread causing damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live" (NNSS, 2017). Without any social licence, pesticide companies have thrust GMOs into the foodscape. The release of GMOs has generally been unwelcome, there has been no 'pull' factor from consumers and there has been vocal resistance from many. The apologists for GMOs have argued the self-contradictory conceit that GMOs are 'same but different'. Under this logically untenable stance, GMOs are to be excluded from specific regulation because they are the 'same' as existing organisms, while simultaneously they are 'different' and so open to patenting. GMOs are patented and this demonstrates that, prima facie, these are novel organisms which are non-native to the foodscape. GMO apologists have campaigned intensively, and successfully in USA, to ensure that consumers are kept in the dark and that GMOs remain unlabelled - as a consequence GMOs are ubiquitous in US consumer foods. In contrast, in Australia GMOs are required to be labelled if present in consumer products and, in consequence, Australian food manufacturers do not use them. The release of a GMO calls for biosecurity measures. After trial plots of Monsanto GM canola in Tasmania in the 1990s, the sites continue to be biosecurity monitored for GMO escape, and volunteer canola plants continue to appear two decades later. In Western Australia the escape of GMO canola into a neighbouring organic farm resulted in the loss of organic certification and the monetary loss of the organic premium for produce. GMO produce sells for a 10% discount because of market forces and the consumer aversion to GMOs. Where non-GM product is accidentally contaminated with some GM grain, the whole batch is discounted and is sold as GMO. There is a lack of evidence that GMOs can be contained and many jurisdictions have banned the introduction of GMOs. GMOs have the potential and the propensity to contaminate non-GMO crops and thereby devalue them. The evidence is that GMOs are invasive species, they are unwelcome by consumers, peaceful coexistence with non-GM varieties is a fiction, and GMOs are appropriately managed as a biosecurity issue.