By Samuel OBENG-MENSAH
Given the controversies and broad spectrum of interests surrounding genetic engineering in agriculture, it is not surprising that different countries have developed and adopted diverse regulatory approaches to genetically engineered (GE) plants, crops, and food.
The elements of scientific risk assessment are broadly similar among regulatory systems, but policy decisions—which inherently reflect different political and cultural perspectives on risks and benefits—vary considerably.
Different cultural traditions, environmental and other societal conditions, and risk tolerances influence decision-makers, and they face political pressures from diverse groups—environmental and food-safety groups, organic-crop producers, large-scale farmers, animal producers, consumers, multinational agricultural companies, and other entities involved in the complex global food production and distribution chain.
As noted, some regulatory systems reflect policies that are more permissive toward GE crops and foods1 and others reflect policies that are more precautionary.
A number of countries have adopted a “process-based” approach to regulation in which foods and crops that have been modified through a specified set of genetic-engineering techniques are subject to premarket regulatory safety review for food safety and environmental protection, whereas new foods and crops that have similar traits and were developed through other breeding technologies are not.
In addition, some regulatory systems for GE crops and foods go beyond food safety and environmental protection to address economic and social issues, such as protecting non-GE agricultural production systems, providing information to consumers through product labels, and taking account of other social and economic concerns.
It’s an illustrative example of regulatory systems and compares regulation of GE crops with regulation of crops developed through conventional plant breeding. It also analyzes the implications of the emerging genetic-engineering technologies the risk assessment, and the scope of GE crop regulatory systems.
To a considerable extent, international trade and other agreements constrain the domestic-product regulation policies of countries that are parties to the agreements.
National food-safety regulatory systems of countries that are party to the WTO must be consistent with principles established in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
The SPS Agreement governs measures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, including food safety. While acknowledging the right of governments to enact such measures, the SPS Agreement also recognizes that such measures can operate as a de facto trade barrier and therefore sets out requirements to minimize trade barriers.
In general, the Codex guidelines and principles direct developers of GE foods to provide information that enables regulators to assess a variety of food-safety risks:
The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) governs a broader set of measures and standards than the SPS Agreement and is intended to address such standards as those designed to protect the environment, promote national security, prevent deceptive marketplace practices, and protect human health and safety (apart from food-safety issues) and animal or plant life or health.
In the same vein, the TBT Agreement also recognizes the right of governments to adopt such measures but encourages the use of relevant international standards and nondiscriminatory practices to reduce barriers to trade.
Both the SPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement represent efforts to reduce impediments to trade by limiting what member countries may do through regulations or practices to create de facto trade barriers.
As said earlier, in the case of food safety, restrictions must be based on scientific evidence regarding risk assessment, but other kinds of regulation have more leeway to incorporate nonsafety or socioeconomic issues that represent the diverse values of different countries.
Within the overall framework of the various international agreements, national governments have crafted formal regulatory approaches for GE foods and crops that differ in several important ways.
Under a Coordinated Framework, both EPA and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have responsibility for assessing and managing the potential environmental risks posed by some GE crops.
Given its general authority to regulate pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, EPA has responsibility for approving pesticidal proteins expressed in GE crops.
The EU on the other hand as a regional government’s approach to regulation obviously differs from that of the United States because it is not based on existing national laws. It has taken a more precautionary approach to approving the commercialization of GE crops.
Given the strong public opposition to GM foods in some Member States of the EU, it has been difficult for the block’s decision-making process to reach agreements to approve GM food and crop applications even when EFSA’s risk assessments have concluded that a GM food or crop is as safe as non-GM counterparts.
To break the political gridlock surrounding decisions to approve the cultivation of GM crops, the EU adopted new rules to allow Member States to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of an approved GM crop on the basis of non-risk policy considerations such as environmental or agricultural policy objectives.
The EU has adopted rules that require a GM food, feed, or grain to be labeled. The EU justifies labeling as a right-to-know issue, a right conferred in the European constitution and by international human-rights laws.
It is against this background that we are calling on the government of Ghana to be more firm on any decision concerning the introduction of Genetically Modified Organism product on the market of Ghana and more importantly urge the FDA to be assertive on the implementation of any decision on GMOs.
Introduction of GMOs on the market of Ghana has been met with apprehensions from the General Agricultural Workers Union (GAWU), Peasant Farmers Association and a host of agricultural related groups in the country which is what the government is to listen
As some MPs who are known agriculturists have said, it is very dangerous for the country to accept the introduction of such products on the market as they may pose danger to the innocent consuming public
It is important for Ghana to note that it takes a healthy people to build a healthy nation and therefore, the nation should be extremely careful not to hasten the process of getting the require regulatory framework in place before any attempt is made for the introduction of GMOs in the country or better still avoid the introduction altogether.
