ABSTRACT
References ................................................................................................................................... 304
There are two types of regulatory framework for foods derived from GM crops. First, is the
horizontal process-based that focuses on the process of genetic modification, as for example,
those enacted in the European Union (EU) and Australia. Second, is the vertical product-based
that focuses on the resulting product characteristics, as for example, in the United States (U.S.) and
Canada [1]. These two legislature processes are diametrically divergent and have often led to
clashes and trade disputes [2]. Biotechnology has been readily accepted in medicine because of
the tangible benefits enjoyed by consumers. However, food biotechnology, as it is commercialized
today, has no obvious direct benefit to the consumer. The benefit is predominantly to the providing
multinational companies and farmers, whereas any real or perceived risks are borne by consumers,
resulting in a cautious stand in some countries in Europe. Other social factors, including different
cultural attitudes toward food and agriculture, the lack of trust in regulatory institutions or the
global agri-food industry, the reliability of scientific advice, and the economic interests of the
European farmers have also contributed to Europe’s resistance to food biotechnology even
though the technology may have indirect potential benefits. For instance, an indirect environmental
benefit could be reduced pesticide use. A social benefit could be the improvement of agriculture and
food security in developing countries by using biotechnology to improve locally adopted crops and
seeds as opposed to focusing on GM corn and soybean crops that work for U.S. farmers [3]. The
right to choose is a central focus to the European stance against food biotechnology as the choice
issue arises differently in different countries. For example, in Africa and other developing countries,
multinational biotechnology companies may have little economic incentive to invest in seeds and
germplasms that will not benefit poor farmers or solve local farming problems, making such
innovations a public sector responsibility.
