State of exception in the regulation of genetically modified organisms in Brazil

Abstract

The regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Brazil has involved intense disputes between the three branches of government (legislature, executive and judiciary). This process arose out of a class-action suit that overruled a decision authorizing the commercial release of GM soybeans by the regulatory body. After a seven-year legal ban, the disputes moved into the legislative and executive branches, as two successive federal governments have created ad hoc legal means to overcome the requirements for a precautionary approach to the commercial release of GMOs in Brazil. This paper intends to show that the evolution of the regulatory agency responsible for GMOs reveals a political practice which is not based on commonly agreed rules but rather on regimes of exception, in which the legal system has consistently been violated in the name of governability. T Victor Pelaez is at the

Toward a workable biosafety system for regulating genetically modified organisms in Ethiopia

“…This could result in undesirable situations like what happened in southern Brazil, where GM soybean smuggled across the border from Argentina was illegally planted. 27 Sudan, a neighboring country to Ethiopia, has already commercialized Bt cotton, 22 and there is a high chance that Kenya, which recently legalized commercialization of GMOs, 21 will place on the market in 2014. Thus, to the extent that it is important to consider the risks associated with adopting GMOs, it is equally important to thoroughly assess the possible socioeconomic consequences of not adopting GM technologies in Ethiopia.…”

The Role of Risk Perception and Political Culture: A Comparative Study of Regulating Genetically Modified Food

“…Deliberating within the context of mounting pressure by Monsanto and its strategic partnership with Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecária, the commission's technical report emphasized that "genetically modified foods do not offer risks to the environment or to health" [125]. However, this regulatory stance ignored a previous court order that ordered the pro-transgenic Ministry of Agriculture, led by agriculture minister Marcus Vincius Pratini de Moraes, to deny Monsanto the registration of roundup ready soybeans in Brazil [74,126,127].…”

“…The Minister of Agriculture, Marcus Vincius Pratini de Moraes, accusing the non-governmental organizations of being sponsored by multi-national corporations, favored the cultivation of genetically modified foods [135]. In alliance with the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecária, which controlled more than 50 % of the national soybean seed production, Pratini added that "the sales of agrotoxins in Brazil could drop by 50 % with the dissemination of glyphosate-resistant GM soybeans [and] that Brazilian agriculture would be less competitive if farmers did not plant transgenic crops" [126].…”

“…As a result, the federal government, under its new president, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva (2003Silva ( -2010, intervened to resolve the emerging legal conflicts. Officials, like federal deputy Darcisio Perondi, called for the immediate release of genetically modified soybeans arguing that "51 % of the worldwide soybean harvest is transgenic, and growing by around 20 % every year … Transgenic crops benefit the economy and the environment as they do not require the use of agrotoxins and therefore more is produced in a smaller space and thus biodiversity is protected" [126]. By early 2003, it was also clear that over 10 % of the national 49 million tons harvest were transgenic.…”

“…More powerful than ever, the Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança became an object for both pro-and antitransgenic camps. While tensions and polarization characterized the decision making process, the Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança, continued to weigh the risks of transgenic foods and, as of July 2011, has approved 31 such products [126,[142][143][144].…”