Dataset Information

Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries.

ABSTRACT: The development of new genetic modification techniques (nGMs), also referred to as "new (breeding) techniques" in other sources, has raised worldwide discussions regarding their regulation. Different existing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cover nGMs to varying degrees. Coverage of nGMs depends mostly on the regulatory trigger. In general two different trigger systems can be distinguished, taking into account either the process applied during development or the characteristics of the resulting product. A key question is whether regulatory frameworks either based on process- or product-oriented triggers are more advantageous for the regulation of nGM applications. We analyzed regulatory frameworks for GMO from different countries covering both trigger systems with a focus on their applicability to plants developed by various nGMs. The study is based on a literature analysis and qualitative interviews with regulatory experts and risk assessors of GMO in the respective countries. The applied principles of risk assessment are very similar in all investigated countries independent of the applied trigger for regulation. Even though the regulatory trigger is either process- or product-oriented, both triggers systems show features of the respective other in practice. In addition our analysis shows that both trigger systems have a number of generic advantages and disadvantages, but neither system can be regarded as superior at a general level. More decisive for the regulation of organisms or products, especially nGM applications, are the variable criteria and exceptions used to implement the triggers in the different regulatory frameworks. There are discussions and consultations in some countries about whether changes in legislation are necessary to establish a desired level of regulation of nGMs. We identified five strategies for countries that desire to regulate nGM applications for biosafety-ranging from applying existing biosafety frameworks without further amendments to establishing new stand-alone legislation. Due to varying degrees of nGM regulation, international harmonization will supposedly not be achieved in the near future. In the context of international trade, transparency of the regulatory status of individual nGM products is a crucial issue. We therefore propose to introduce an international public registry listing all biotechnology products commercially used in agriculture.

SUBMITTER: Eckerstorfer MF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6389621 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries.

Eckerstorfer Michael F MF Engelhard Margret M Heissenberger Andreas A Simon Samson S Teichmann Hanka H

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology 20190219

The development of new genetic modification techniques (nGMs), also referred to as "new (breeding) techniques" in other sources, has raised worldwide discussions regarding their regulation. Different existing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cover nGMs to varying degrees. Coverage of nGMs depends mostly on the regulatory trigger. In general two different trigger systems can be distinguished, taking into account either the process applied during development or the ch ...[more]

PMID: 30838207

Similar Datasets

Project description:Developing countries can generate effective solutions for today's global health challenges. This paper reviews relevant literature to construct the case for international cooperation, and in particular, developed-developing country partnerships. Standard database and web-based searches were conducted for publications in English between 1990 and 2010. Studies containing full or partial data relating to international cooperation between developed and developing countries were retained for further analysis. Of 227 articles retained through initial screening, 65 were included in the final analysis. The results were two-fold: some articles pointed to intangible benefits accrued by developed country partners, but the majority of information pointed to developing country innovations that can potentially inform health systems in developed countries. This information spanned all six WHO health system components. Ten key health areas where developed countries have the most to learn from the developing world were identified and include, rural health service delivery; skills substitution; decentralisation of management; creative problem-solving; education in communicable disease control; innovation in mobile phone use; low technology simulation training; local product manufacture; health financing; and social entrepreneurship. While there are no guarantees that innovations from developing country experiences can effectively transfer to developed countries, combined developed-developing country learning processes can potentially generate effective solutions for global health systems. However, the global pool of knowledge in this area is virgin and further work needs to be undertaken to advance understanding of health innovation diffusion. Even more urgently, a standardized method for reporting partnership benefits is needed--this is perhaps the single most immediate need in planning for, and realizing, the full potential of international cooperation between developed and developing countries.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the life-saving work they perform, community health workers (CHWs) have long been subject to global debate about their remuneration. There is now, however, an emerging consensus that CHWs should be paid. As the discussion evolves from whether to financially remunerate CHWs to how to do so, there is an urgent need to better understand the types of CHW payment models and their implications.MethodsThis study examines the legal framework on CHW compensation in five countries: Brazil, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa. In order to map the characteristics of each approach, a review of the regulatory framework governing CHW compensation in each country was undertaken. Law firms in each of the five countries were engaged to support the identification and interpretation of relevant legal documents. To guide the search and aid in the creation of uniform country profiles, a standardized set of questions was developed, covering: (i) legal requirements for CHW compensation, (ii) CHW compensation mechanisms, and (iii) CHW legal protections and benefits.ResultsThe five countries profiled represent possible archetypes for CHW compensation: Brazil (public), Ghana (volunteer-based), Nigeria (private), Rwanda (cooperatives with performance based incentives) and South Africa (hybrid public/private). Advantages and disadvantages of each model with respect to (i) CHWs, in terms of financial protection, and (ii) the health system, in terms of ease of implementation, are outlined.ConclusionsWhile a strong legal framework does not necessarily translate into high-quality implementation of compensation practices, it is the first necessary step. Certain approaches to CHW compensation - particularly public-sector or models with public sector wage floors - best institutionalize recommended CHW protections. Political will and long-term financing often remain challenges; removing ecosystem barriers - such as multilateral and bilateral restrictions on the payment of salaries - can help governments institutionalize CHW payment.

Dataset Information

Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries.

Publications

Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets