The developing world has a particularly strong interest in the use of agricultural biotechnology, and the regulative policies of developing nations reflect this interest. Agricultural products are the primary export for many of these nations. For example, Hondurasâ primary exports are coffee, sugar, and bananas. Without successful agriculture, nations such as Honduras would lose their economic base. Bioengineered crops are therefore demanded by these nations because they seek to keep pace with the production of nations such as the U.S. and because they are almost entirely reliant on their crops. Because of this, developing nations are willing to put relatively large funds toward research and development of biotechnology.

Regulatory laws with technical provisions are a work in progress in the developing world. Most biotechnical developments are too recent for the relatively non-technical and non-scientific law makers in their governments to provide for. The legislation they have drafted for the most part calls for safety measures and testing. It confers regulatory responsibility on government committees.

The regulatory and research bodies for biotechnology that have been established in developing nations are several, but incipient. Pakistan has created the National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), which employs funds of US$ 0.36 million and the support of the IAEA and the United States. It holds quarterly workshops on environmental protection. Malawi has the National Biosafety and Biotechnology Committee, which facilitates cooperation and dialogue among NGOs, the national university, the government, and industry. In Uganda, the National Agricultural Research Organization with a staff of about 150 regulates biotechnology and performs risk assessment in this field. Uganda is also a member of the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). Uganda shows a strong commitment to development of biotech, especially cassava that is resistant to disease and pests and beans that have higher yield per plant. Indonesia, Bangladesh, India and Malaysia also all have such bodies with government funding. Many of these organizations are linked to other bodies within their nations and to regional associations. Because funds are so scarce in most of these countries, the existence of these bodies speaks of the importance of regulation for the developing world.

Both governments and farmers are concerned primarily with success on the market rather than preservation of traditional crop-raising practices. In the Philippines, however, and some other nations, community acceptance of biotechnology is required by the government before a farmer can implement it: ãProspecting of biological and genetic resources shall be allowed within the ancestral lands and domains of indigenous cultural communities only with the prior informed consent of such communities, obtained in accordance with the customary laws of the concerned community. Such regulations reflect the concerns that some citizens hold about the safety and marketability of bioengineered crops.

Transparency laws are not a priority in practice in the developing world. Nations do not require food that they are exporting to be labeled for biotechnology at this time. Neither do they require strict labeling of any imported or domestic foods which will be sold within their countries, Overall, developing nations do not have sufficient technical regulation. That they have standing bodies for this purpose is an indication that policy will become more technical in time.

(Technical report prepared by Kaitlyn Dudley, group G) (Chemistry and Public Policy, 12/3/99) i http://www.biotec.or.th/binas/regulations.html ii http://www.un.org (search: biotechnology iii http://www.biotec.or.th/binas/regulations.html iv ibid

Jump to Table of Contents