|
|
 |
In
depth I
Biotechnology and biosafety
|
|
 |
Greenpeace's position paper on liability and redress
Source:
Greenpeace International
This briefing by Greenpeace International provides an overview of the current text under negotiation, and highlights some of the key elements that are needed to achieve a successful and meaningful agreement at the Bonn meeting. (PDF). May 2008.[see more]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biotechnology involves technological applications that use biological systems, living organisms, or their derivatives, to make or modify products or processes. Given its far-reaching implications, biotechnological development raises ethical questions and has aroused alarm concerning its potential adverse effects on biodiversity and natural resources.
The champions of biotechnological development -international corporations and various developed countries, headed by the United States- claim that the application of biotechnology will guarantee the world's food supply, and promote sustainable agriculture, thus benefiting the environment. They also argue that biotechnology ensures more efficient disposal of toxic waste and prevents pollution by treating waste products before they are released into the environment.
In contrast, opponents of biotechnology argue that not only is it damaging for the environment, but also poses a threat to world security since it facilitates the development of chemical and biological weapons.
Genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs) are increasingly being released in countries in the South, many of which have no legislation governing the use of biotechnology, and lack effective control over compliance with security norms and measures.
In January 2000 the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted. It is the first international treaty to recognise GMOs as a separate category of organism that requires its own specific regulatory framework. Apart from establishing the basis for international legislation on cross-border movement of GMOs, the Protocol is important in terms of its reaffirmation of the "precautionary principle", which states that, in the absence of full scientific certainty, a country can limit importation of GMOs on the grounds of their potentially damaging effects.
On 13 June 2003, Palau became the 50th country to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, meaning that the pact finally entered into force on 11 September 2003.
Versión
en español
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
News |
| Up-to-date current affairs information. |
Tue May 30 2006
Global coalition sounds the alarm on synthetic biology
Wed Mar 15 2006
Transgenic crops make their mark in Latin America
|
 |
In-depth
reports |
| Detailed
reports on key issues |
Disarmament
Every day, millions of men, women and children are living in fear of armed violence.
Agriculture and food sovereignty
Farmers could produce enough food to eradicate world hunger. So, why won’t they let them?
Hazardous waste trafficking
Toxic products find their way to developing countries, causing pollution and health problems.
GM food
Is the use of transgenics a justifiable solution to the problem of famine in poor countries?
Rio+10: Earth Summit 2002
Ten years after Rio ’92, is there still an agenda for sustainable development?
|
 |
Campaigns |
| NGO-organised
actions |
Stop GE trees campaign
Ban terminator seeds
Oppose the National Geographic & IBM project on the collection of Indigenous peoples DNA
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Civil society |
 |
|
Official information |
 |
|
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety |
 |
|
The biotechnological industry |
 |
|
Information resources |
 |
|
Nanotechnology: a small scale problem? |
 |
|
Biotechnology and patent laws |
 |
|
The issue of GM trees |
 |
|
Articles and reports |
 |
-
Biotechnolgy in Sub-Saharan Africa: an introduction
Source: African Technology Policy Studies Network
John Mugabe
The role of modern biotechnology in the economic transformation of developing countries has become the subject of intense academic inquiry and public policy discourse. There is increasing debate about the potential contributions that the technology can make to these countries (pdf format).
-
No biosecurity without biosafety
Source: Institute of Science in Society
'Biosafety' refers to a set of measures aimed at regulating and ensuring the safe use of genetic engineering and transnational movements of genetically modified organisms. 'Biosecurity’, on the other hand, is the term used for measures aimed at countering terrorist attacks involving biological agents or toxins. The marriage between both concepts becomes ever more clear as evidence proves that genetic ingeneering may have contributed to the resurgence of infectious diseases in the last years. March 2005.
-
Rights and liberties in the biotech age: Why we need a genetic bill Of rights
Source: Council for responsible genetics
This book argues for a set of principles to protect our individual liberties and communitarian interests against both the misuse and neglectful use of genetic technology. Building on the notion of a Genetic Bill of Rights, two dozen leading scientists, scholars, and public interest advocates examine the challenges we face in governing the future of genetics.
-
NGOs urge WHO to reject smallpox genetic engineering
A campaign has been launched to request the World Health Organization (WHO) not to proceed with a project involving the genetic engineering of the smallpox virus and instead to ensure that all remaining stocks of the virus are destroyed within two years. April 2005.
-
Genetic engineering dangers and impacts: lessons from real life
Source: The Independent Science Pan
Lim Li Ching
Since the concerns over genetic engineering were first raised in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety negotiations, there has been increasing evidence of ecological and health hazards and risks, as well as adverse impacts on farmers, some of which are highlighted in this briefing paper.
-
Wither biosafety?
Source: GRAIN
Across the world processes to draw-up national biosafety laws are increasingly disconnected from the people they are supposed to serve. Drafting typically takes place behind closed doors, between local elites and foreign "experts" of the GM lobby, with corporations close at hand to steer the discussion. October 2005.
-
Convention on biological diversity: civil society prepares for battle
Source: Choike
The three objectives of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are incredibly ambitious: the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components - without reserve or restriction- and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The eighth Conference of the Parties on the CBD that will be held in Curitiba, Brazil on late March promises to decide on these issues but civil society organizations already predict a grim outcome. February 2006.
-
Groups in Africa, Latin America condemn World Bank biosafety projects
Source: GRAIN
Two World Bank projects, with funding from the GEF (Global Environmental Facility), propose to introduce genetically modified crops such as maize, potatoes, cassava, rice and cotton into five Latin American and four African countries that are centers of origin or diversity for these and other major food crops. Civil society organizations warn that DNA contamination from genetically modified crops poses an unacceptable risk to stable crops that are the basis of peasant economies in these regions. The multi-million dollar projects are being promoted under the guise of scientific biosafety research, but civil society organizations on both continents are calling for their immediate rejection because they threaten food sovereignty and farmer-controlled seed systems. June 2006.
-
Genetic engineering and omitted health research: still no answers to ageing questions
Source: Biosafety Information Centre
Some of the most crucial scientific questions concerning health effects of GE and GEOs (genetically engineered organisms) were raised up to twenty years ago. Most of them have still not been answered at all, or have found unsatisfactory answers. Will another twenty years pass before societies realize the urgent need for public funding of genuinely independent risk and hazard related research? (PDF document). October 2006.
|
Analysis and opinions |
 |
|
Media |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|