Gaps, inexperience, inconsistencies, and overlaps: crisis in the regulation of genetically modified plants and animals.

William and Mary law review Pub Date : 2004-04-01
Gregory N Mandal
{"title":"Gaps, inexperience, inconsistencies, and overlaps: crisis in the regulation of genetically modified plants and animals.","authors":"Gregory N Mandal","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The regulation of genetically modified products pursuant to statutes enacted decades prior to the advent of biotechnology has created a regulatory system that is passive rather than proactive about risks, has difficulty adapting to biotechnology advances, and is highly fractured and inefficient--transgenic plants and animals are governed by at least twelve different statutes and five different agencies or services. The deficiencies resulting from this piecemeal approach to regulation unnecessarily expose society and the environment to adverse risks of biotechnology and introduce numerous inefficiencies into the regulatory system. These risks and inefficiencies include gaps in regulation, duplicative and inconsistent regulation, unnecessary increases in the cost of and delay in the development and commercialization of new biotechnology products. These deficiencies also increase the risk of further unnecessary biotechnology scares, which may cause public overreaction against biotechnology products, preventing the maximization of social welfare. With science and society poised to soar from first-generation biotechnology (focused on crops modified for agricultural benefit), to next-generation developments (including transgenic fish, insects, and livestock, and pharmaceutical-producing and industrial compound-producing plants and animals), it is necessary to establish a comprehensive, efficient, and scientifically rigorous regulatory system. This Article details how to achieve such a result through fixing the deficiencies in, and risks created by, the current regulatory structure. Ignoring many details, the solutions can be summarized in two categories. First, statutory and regulatory gaps that are identified must be closed with new legislation and regulation. Second, regulation of genetically modified products must be shifted from a haphazard model based on statutes not intended to cover biotechnology to a system based upon agency expertise in handling particular types of risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The regulation of genetically modified products pursuant to statutes enacted decades prior to the advent of biotechnology has created a regulatory system that is passive rather than proactive about risks, has difficulty adapting to biotechnology advances, and is highly fractured and inefficient--transgenic plants and animals are governed by at least twelve different statutes and five different agencies or services. The deficiencies resulting from this piecemeal approach to regulation unnecessarily expose society and the environment to adverse risks of biotechnology and introduce numerous inefficiencies into the regulatory system. These risks and inefficiencies include gaps in regulation, duplicative and inconsistent regulation, unnecessary increases in the cost of and delay in the development and commercialization of new biotechnology products. These deficiencies also increase the risk of further unnecessary biotechnology scares, which may cause public overreaction against biotechnology products, preventing the maximization of social welfare. With science and society poised to soar from first-generation biotechnology (focused on crops modified for agricultural benefit), to next-generation developments (including transgenic fish, insects, and livestock, and pharmaceutical-producing and industrial compound-producing plants and animals), it is necessary to establish a comprehensive, efficient, and scientifically rigorous regulatory system. This Article details how to achieve such a result through fixing the deficiencies in, and risks created by, the current regulatory structure. Ignoring many details, the solutions can be summarized in two categories. First, statutory and regulatory gaps that are identified must be closed with new legislation and regulation. Second, regulation of genetically modified products must be shifted from a haphazard model based on statutes not intended to cover biotechnology to a system based upon agency expertise in handling particular types of risks.

差距、缺乏经验、不一致和重叠:转基因动植物监管的危机。
根据在生物技术出现之前几十年颁布的法规对转基因产品进行监管,创造了一个对风险被动而非主动的监管体系,难以适应生物技术的进步,而且高度断裂和低效——转基因植物和动物由至少12个不同的法规和5个不同的机构或服务部门管理。这种零敲碎打的管理方法所造成的缺陷,不必要地使社会和环境暴露于生物技术的不利风险之中,并给管理系统带来许多效率低下的问题。这些风险和低效率包括监管方面的空白、重复和不一致的监管、新生物技术产品的开发和商业化成本的不必要增加和延迟。这些缺陷也增加了进一步不必要的生物技术恐慌的风险,这可能导致公众对生物技术产品的过度反应,从而阻碍了社会福利的最大化。随着科学和社会从第一代生物技术(专注于为农业利益而改造的作物)到下一代发展(包括转基因鱼、昆虫和牲畜,以及制药和工业化合物生产植物和动物)的迅猛发展,有必要建立一个全面、高效、科学严谨的监管体系。本文详细介绍了如何通过解决当前监管结构中的缺陷和风险来实现这一目标。忽略许多细节,解决方案可以概括为两类。首先,必须通过新的立法和监管来填补已发现的法律和监管空白。其次,对转基因产品的监管必须从一种基于不打算涵盖生物技术的法规的随意模式转变为一种基于机构在处理特定类型风险方面的专业知识的系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信