bioplan
David.Duthie@unep.org
Dear BIOPLANNERS,
 

So much is being written about GM CROPS and BIOSAFETY at 
present, it is difficult to know what to highlight through this 
listserver. The article described below 
GOVERNING THE GM CROP REVOLUTION: POLICY CHOICES FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES)
does seem to be "more essential" reading than most for those 
grappling with biosafety policy.

Robert Paarlberg outlines a framework (or taxonomy) which can be 
used to "position" a country in terms of the major decisions being 
taken in a country and illustrates this with China, Brazil, India and 
Kenya. 

This taxonomy could be aplied to each country in turn and helps to 
impose some logic on the rapidly changing global policy map.

The reports can be downloaded as pdf  files fromo the URLs below 
and can be ordered as hardcopy from the same.

DOWNLOAD OR ORDER ONLINE 

Discussion Paper 33 (36 pages)

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/catalog.htm#dp
 

DOWNLOAD Brief 68 (2 pages) 
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/catalog.htm#briefs
 

I am pasting a version of the brief below but have been unable to 
ontrol the format of the tables so have moved them to the end
 

Best wishes
 

David Duthie
 

****************************************************************************
 

GOVERNING THE GM CROP REVOLUTION: POLICY CHOICES 
FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Robert L.Paarlberg

2020 BRIEF 68 A 2020 Vision for Food,  Agriculture, and the Environment 

DECEMBER 2000 INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH
INSTITUTE 2033 K STREET,N.W.WASHINGTON,D.C. 20006-1002 U.S.A.

PHONE:+1-202-862-5600 FAX:+1-202-467-4439 
EMAIL:ifpri@cgiar.org 
WEB:www.ifpri.org

Will developing countries adopt policies that promote the planting of 
genetically modified(GM) crops, or will they select policies that slow the 
spread of the GM crop revolution? The evidence so far is mixed. In 
some prominent countries such as China, policies are in place that 
encourage the in dependent development and planting of GM crops. 
Yet in a number of other equally prominent countries the planting of GM 
crops is not yet officially approved. The inclination of developing 
countries to promote or block the spread of GM crops can be judged by 
the policy choices they make in five separate areas: intellectual property 
rights (IPR)policy, biosafety policy, trade policy, food safety policy, and 
public research investments (Table 1).
 

POLICY OPTIONS TOWARD GM CROPS

Intellectual Property Rights.If developing countries want to bring GM crop 
technologies into their farming systems, they may have to recognize 
some of the intellectual property rights claims of the private companies 
that have been developing GM crops. At one extreme, they might even 
adopt the U.S. approach and provide full patent protection. A somewhat 
less promotional policy could offer only plant breeders ’rights as IPR 
guarantees, which entitle breeders to use protected varieties as an 
initial source of variation for the creation of new varieties as in the 1991 
agreement of the Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plant 
(UPOV).A still weaker approach would be to embrace an earlier 1978 
version of UPOV, which preserves the privilege of farmers to replant 
seeds from protected varieties on their own farms. Weaker still would 
be to provide no IPRs at all for plant breeders.

Biosafety.
In the area of biological safety, the most promotional policy 
toward GM crops would be to approve the use of these crops without 
any careful case-by-case screening for unwanted gene flow or damage 
to non target species. A less promotional approach would be to screen 
GM crops case by case but only for risks that can be scientifically 
demonstrated. A more cautious approach would be to hold crops off 
the market case by case even with out proof of risk so long as some 
scientific uncertainties remained. The most cautious approach would 
be to assume risk in all cases be cause of the novelty of the GM 
process.

Trade.
Consumer acceptance of GM crops in major importing countries 
continues to evolve. Assuming adequate consumer acceptance, a 
promotional trade policy toward GM crops would be to seek the import 
of GM plant materials and seeds with out restriction and promote the 
planting of GM crops in hopes of cutting farm production costs and be 
coming a more competitive exporter. A more neutral approach would be 
to neither promote nor prevent the planting of GM crops and to treat GM 
seed and commodity imports the same way as non-GM imports. A 
more cautious trade policy approach would be to develop and 
implement a separate and more restrictive method for regulating and 
labeling the import of GM seeds or commodities compared with non-
GM.A preventive trade policy choice would be to ban GM imports and 
block the planting of GM crops. If consumer acceptance of GM crops in 
international markets continues to weaken, such a ban on planting GM
crops could be defended on trade grounds as a way to seek price 
premiums on the world market as a “GM-free ” exporter..

Food Safety and Consumer Choice. 
In this area a promotional policy would 
be to conclude that GM crops currently on the market pose no new 
hazards to human health and to impose no additional inspection or 
labeling burdens on them. A less promotional approach would be to 
require labeling of some GM foods in the interest of a consumer ’s right 
to know but to make the labeling standards lenient enough so that a 
complete segregation of GM from non-GM commodities is not required. 
A still more cautious approach would be to impose mandatory 
comprehensive labeling for all GM foods in a manner that would 
require market segregation. A fully preventive approach would be to ban 
all GM foods or to label them in ways in tended to stigmatize and 
prevent their use.

Public Research Investments. 
Developing countries must also make a 
range of agricultural research in vestment choices toward GM crops. At 
one extreme they might spend treasury resources to develop their own 
GM crops. As a second option they could invest only in the more limited 
goal of back crossing GM traits developed by others into their own 
domestic germplasm. As a still more limited option they could allow 
their scientists to pursue back crossing of transgenes into local 
varieties only if donors were willing to pay for it. At a preventive extreme 
they could decide not to spend any money, even donor money, on GM 
crop research.
 

POLICY CHOICES IN FOUR DEVELOPING 
COUNTRIES

This system can be used to classify the actual policy choices toward 
GM crops that were made by governments in Brazil, China, India, and 
Kenya in 1999 –2000 (Table 2).Whereas China opted for relatively 
permissive policies toward GM crops, Brazil, India, and Kenya have in 
most respects been more precautionary. In Brazil, India, and Kenya 
biosafety approval has emerged as the principal point of resistance 
against moving the GM crop revolution forward. 

This is a surprising discovery given the fact that biosafety approvals for 
GM crops have not been such a strong sticking point in the industrial 
world, given the traditionally weak agricultural biosafety policies of most 
developing countries, and given the potential biosafety benefits of 
some GM crop applications (those that permit fewer and less toxic 
chemical sprays).It is particularly surprising that Brazil and India have 
moved so slowly on biosafety approvals for GM crops, given the 
significant state investments that are simultaneously being made in 
both countries to develop GM crops. International pressures of four 
kinds help explain this pattern of caution in the developing 
world:(1)environmental groups based in Europe and North America 
have used media campaigns, lawsuits, and direct actions to project 
into the developing world a tone of extreme caution toward GM 
crops;(2)consumer doubts in Europe and Japan regarding GM crops 
have discouraged planting of those crops by developing-country 
exporters;(3)the precautionary tone of the 2000 Biosafety Protocol 
governing transboundary movements of GM crops is reinforcing 
biosafety caution in the developing world; and (4)do nor assistance to 
developing countries in the area of agribiotechnology has often focused 
more on the possible biosafety risks of the new technology than on its 
possible agronomic or economic advantages. One reason for China’s 
more permissive biosafety policy is its greater insulation from some of 
these international influences promoting caution elsewhere. A further 
spread of GM crops into the developing world will therefore depend on 
more than just the availability of suitable technologies. It will also 
depend upon the future willingness of biosafety authorities in 
developing countries to give farmers permission to plant GM crops. 
This willingness, in turn, will likely depend as much on the external 
pressures and influences faced by these regulators as upon actual 
documented threats to biosafety from GM crops.
 

Robert L.Paarlberg (rpaarlberg@Wellesley.edu)is a professor of political science at 
Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, U.S.A., and an associate at the 
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. This brief is 
based on 2020 Vision Discussion Paper 33 of the same title.

Copy right ©2000 International Food Policy Research Institute.All rights reserved.

Table 1 —Policy options toward GM crops 

Promotional
Permissive
Precautionary
Preventive

Intellectual property rights
Full patent protection, plus plant breeders ’ rights under UPOV 1991
PBRs under UPOV 1991
PBRs under UPOV 1978,which preserves farmers ’privilege
No IPRs for plants or animals, or IPRs on paper that are not en forced

Biosafety
No careful screening, only token screening, or approval based on approvals in 
other countries Case-by-case screening for demonstrated risk, depending on intended use of product
Case-by-case screening also for scientific uncertainties owing to novelty of GM 
process
No careful case-by-case screening; risk assumed because of GM process
Trade
GM crops promoted to lower commodity production costs and boost exports; no 
restrictions on imports of GM seeds or plant materials
GM crops neither promoted nor prevented; imports of GM commodities limited in 
same way as non-GM in accordance with science-based WTO standards
Imports of GM seeds and materials screened or re strained separately and more 
tightly than non-GM; labeling requirements imposed on import of GM foods or 
commodities
GM seed and plant imports blocked; GM-free status maintained in hopes of 
capturing export market premiums

Food safety and consumer choice
No regulatory distinction drawn between GM and non-GM foods when testing or 
labeling for food safety
Distinction made between GM and non-GM foods on some existing food labels 
but not so as to re quire segregation of market channels
Comprehensive positive labeling of all GM foods required and enforced with 
segregated market channels
GM food sales banned, or warning labels that stigmatize GM foods as unsafe to 
consumers required

Public research investment
Treasury re sources spent on both development and local adaptations of GM 
crop technologies
Treasury resources spent on local adaptations of GM crop technologies but not 
on development of new transgenes
No significant treasury resources spent on GM crop research or adaptation; 
donors allowed to finance local adaptations of GM crops
Neither treasury nor donor funds spent on any adaptation or development of GM 
crop technology

union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plant;  PBRs 
plant breeders’ rights;  WTO =World Trade Organization.

Table 2 —Policies toward GM crops in Brazil,China, India, and 
Kenya,1999 –2000

Pro motional
Permissive
Precau tionary
Preven tive

Intellectual property rights

Brazil
Kenya China
India

Biosafety

China
Kenya Brazil India

Trade
China
Kenya Brazil
India

Food safety and consumer choice
Kenya China
Brazil India
Public research investment
Brazil India China

Dr David Duthie (Programme Co-ordinator)
UNEP/GEF Biodiversity Planning Support Programme
T-133
PO Box 30552
Gigiri
Nairobi
KENYA

Tel: +254-2-623717
Fax: +254-2-624268/623162
E-mail: david.duthie@unep.org
BIOPLAN is an electronic list server established by the UNDP-UNEP implemented
 Biodiversity Planning Support Programmme and maintained by UNDP-GEF to serve the
 global community involved in planning for national implementation of the Convention on
 Biological Diversity. To unsubscribe (remove yourself) from this list send a message to:
 majordomo@undp.org with the subject line BLANK and the following text in the body of
 the message: UNSUBSCRIBE  BIOPLAN followed by your e-mail address,
or go to http://stone/undpweb/bpsp/bioplan.cfm

BACK TO LISTINGS  HOME