RESTRICTIONS IN GOVERNANCE OF FOOD LAWS

Transcription

1 Wilna Jansen van Rijssen Conference: Critical Law and Governance Perspective n Food Security in South Africa University of the North West June 2015 RESTRICTIONS IN GOVERNANCE OF FOOD LAWS

2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Risk governance models Fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural and stock remedies act (Act 36 of 1947) Restrictions GMO ACT (Act 15 of 1997) Restrictions CONCLUSION 2

3 FOOD INSECURITY Access - government restrictions 3

4 Food control (safety) agency FOOD SAFETY : PESTICIDES 4

5 FOOD LAWS: PESTICIDES Fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural and stock remedies act (Act 36 of 1947) Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Safety, efficacy and quality Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants act (Act 54 of 1972) Department of Health Food safety 5

6 GOOD RISK GOVERNANCE: CRITERIA TRUST IN GOVERNANCE RISK MANAGEMENT ETHICAL CONDUCT ACCOUNTABILITY EFFECTIVENESS RISK ASSESSMENT INDEPENDENCY SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE (PEER REVIEW) COMMUNICATION - CONSULTING TRANSPARENCY OPENNESS PARTICIPATION 6

7 CODEX ALIMENTARIUS: RISK ANALYSIS MODEL Risk Assessment Risk management 7

8 8

9 FOOD LAWS: PESTICIDES HISTORICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (SAFETY) DoH Toxicological INDAC Peer review ARC DA- DoH Vet Faculty DoL - DEA DA registration of pesticides 9

10 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RISK GOVERNANCE MODEL TECHNOCRATIC DECISIONIST DEMOCRATIC DA PEER REVIEW DoH PEER REVIEW Risk assessment Risk management Communication 10

11 GOVERNANCE MODEL: TRANSITIONAL STAGE TECHNOCRATIC ARC/DOH/ Univ Pret Independent scientists Risk assessment Risk management Communication 11

12 FOOD LAWS ; PESTICIDES REGULATION Scarce skills Veterinary toxicologists 12

13 FOOD LAWS: WHO SHOULD BE REPONSIBLE FOR TOXICOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDES? 13

14 Food control (safety) agency FOOD SAFETY : PESTICIDES 14

15 HECTARES X 1000 Wilna JvR FOOD LAWS: GMO ACT OF 1997 DAFF TRENDS IN GM MAIZE HECTARE HARVEST YEAR WHITE 1500 YELLOW 1000 TOTAL YEARS 15

16 16

17 17

18 FOOD LAW: GMO ACT RESTRICTIONS 1. RISK GOVERNANCE OF GMOs 2. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS a) TECHNICAL b) SOCIO-ECONOMIC-TRADE 3. COMPLIANCE COST 4. Consumers' PERCEPTIONS 5. LABELLING OF GM FOOD 18

19 1. GOVERNANCE MODEL: GMO TECHNOCRATIC GMO COUNCIL AC MANDATES DECISIONIST GMO COUNCIL DAFF DoH DEA etc AC ADVISORY COMMIITTEE PEER REVIEW Risk assessment Risk management Communication 19

20 2. GM REQUIREMENTS PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH - Scientific requirements Super Sorghum SOCIO ECONOMIC TRADE Bt potato BENEFIT? 20

21 3. COST OF COMPLIANCE & TIME: ) Category Months Cost ($m) Discovery Construct optimisation Commercial event production/selection Introgression breeding & wide-area testing Regulatory Science Registration & regulatory Affairs TOTAL Regulatory cost is 25.8 % of total cost (McDougal 2012)

22 COST OF COMPLIANCE AND TIME Trends: Construct optimisation commercial event selection have increased Overall time in testing and regulatory approval have increased. Actual overall time declined 22

23 GM VS NON-GM DIFFERENCES (TRANSCRIPTION LEVEL) Natural variation explain most transcriptomic changes among maize plants... (Coll et al., 2010) Gene expression profiles of GM... Comparable with non-gm... (Coll et al., 2009) Micro-array analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion (Batista et al., 2008) Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding (Baudo, 2006) 23

24 UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS: place of genetic engineering

25 4. PERCEPTIONS: QUESTIONS Is GM safe to eat? Is it safe for the environment? Do we need GM? Who benefits from GM? Are there alternatives? 25

26 PERCEPTIONS OF RISK Lack of reliable base of knowledge coupled with emotive fears: FEARS: Involuntary, uncontrollable immoral, unfamiliar, uncertain, catastrophic, memorable, unfair, untrustworthy X Technological complexity leads to the public to substitute trust for knowledge 26

27 PERCEPTIONS OF RISK Trusted opinion Study of South African opinions: High confidence: Academics, church..international organisations. Low confidence Business..government 27

28 GOOD RISK GOVERNANCE: CRITERIA TRUST IN GOVERNANCE RISK MANAGEMENT ETHICAL CONDUCT ACCOUNTABILITY EFFECTIVENESS RISK ASSESSMENT INDEPENDENCY SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE (PEER REVIEW) COMMUNICATION - CONSULTING TRANSPARENCY OPENNESS PARTICIPATION 28

29 FORUM - NETWORK ACADEMICS INTERNATION RENOWND SCIENTISTS SCIENTIFIC MATTERS RELATED TO GMO RESEARCH INSTITUTES GOOD RISK GOVERNANCE TRANSPARENCY PARTICIPATION ADVISORY SCIENTISTS 29

30