Science and Politics in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms in Brazil

Abstract

This paper analyzes the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Brazil, focusing on the debates that preceded the enactment in 2005 of the current Biosafety Law and the factors (both domestic and international) that influenced the policy‐making process. More specifically, it identifies the social and governmental actors that influenced the congressional debates, showing how their interests and agenda were translated into two different institutional frameworks. Here, the policy outcome was what we call a “hybrid” and “conciliatory” regulatory model, which formally acknowledges the importance of both technical/scientific and social/political considerations in the evaluation of GMO biosafety and engages most of the stakeholders in the regulatory process. The new policy regime also establishes a middle ground between the conflicting demands of promoting agricultural development and protecting the country's biodiversity.

Determinants of Firm‐Level Lobbying and Government Responsiveness in Agricultural Biotechnology in China

“…Government policies are often the result of interactions, collaboration, and negotiation between administrative officials and interest groups (Mitre & Reis, ), so both interest groups and policy decision‐makers play a crucial role in policy making and policy change. Significant public protests against GM technology are likely to influence how stringent the regulatory rules are and how the government implements them.…”

“…In general, political parties and/or leaders strive to meet the interests of their voters and incorporate their policy preferences (Bäck, Debus, & Tosun, ). Studies show that government policy is often the result of reciprocal communication and actions between special interest groups and administrative officials (Mitra, ; Mitre & Reis, ). Not only can pressure from above in authoritarian regimes motivate the government to be responsive, but pressure from below can also cause the government to be responsive (Edin, ; Fukuyama, ; Nathan, ).…”

The Ability to Influence: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Advocacy Coalitions in Brazilian Climate Politics

“…The climate coalition's main opponent in the forest‐climate subsystem intersection is the agribusiness advocacy coalition . This coalition consists of landowners; farmers; agribusiness companies like the Amaggi Group; agribusiness interest organizations like the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock; the bureaucracy and the political leadership in the Ministry of Agriculture; and the rural caucus (bancada ruralista), a cross‐party block of rural interests in Congress (Aamodt, ; FPA, ; Mitre & Reis, ; Sauer & França, ) . Because each state has three senators, the nine sparsely populated Amazonian states have strong representation in Congress.…”

Import Restrictions and Food‐Safety Regulations: Insight from Brazil

“…In this context, the 2011 ruling of the European Court of Justice—namely that honey containing traces of pollen from GM plants must be labeled as a GM product—is a particularly important event. Since Brazil is the second‐largest GM‐crop producer worldwide (Mitre & Reis, ; Pelaez, ), the court ruling poses a considerable challenge for honey producers, especially if one considers that GM crops are widespread in the country. Immediately after the court ruling, ABEMEL and MAPA—supported by the other members of the Honey Chamber—began to discuss how traces of pollen from GM plants can be best detected in the laboratories collaborating with MAPA (MAPA, ).…”