Liability Aspects Related to Genetically Modified Food under the Food Safety Legislation in India
The question of legal liability over injury arising out
of the import and the introduction of GM food emerges as a crucial
issue confronting to promote GM food and its derivatives. There is a
greater possibility of commercialized GM food from the exporting
country to enter importing country where status of approval shall not
be same. This necessitates the importance of fixing a liability
mechanism to discuss the damage, if any, occurs at the level of
transboundary movement or at the market. There was a widespread consensus to develop the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety and to give for a dedicated regime on liability
and redress in the form of Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary
Protocol on the Liability and Redress (‘N-KL Protocol’) at the
international context. The national legal frameworks based on this
protocol are not adequately established in the prevailing food
legislations of the developing countries. The developing economy
like India is willing to import GM food and its derivatives after the
successful commercialization of Bt Cotton in 2002. As a party to the
N-KL Protocol, it is indispensable for India to formulate a legal
framework and to discuss safety, liability, and regulatory issues
surrounding GM foods in conformity to the provisions of the
Protocol. The liability mechanism is also important in the case where
the risk assessment and risk management is still in implementing
stage. Moreover, the country is facing GM infiltration issues with its
neighbors Bangladesh. As a precautionary approach, there is a need
to formulate rules and procedure of legal liability to discuss any kind
of damage occurs at transboundary trade. In this context, the
proposed work will attempt to analyze the liability regime in the
existing Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 from the applicability
and domestic compliance and to suggest legal and policy options for
regulatory authorities.
[1] Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and
Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, United Nations
Environment Programme, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada, 2011.
[2] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Act No.34 of 2006, Ministry of
Law and Justice, India.
[3] Reece Walters, "Eco Crime and Genetically Modified Food,"
1sted.Routledge, New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011, pp. 79-104.
[4] Moonsook Park, “A Comparative Study of GMO Labeling and Liability
Systems in the US, EU, and South Korea: The Circumstances and a
Future Potential for Harmonization,” Digital Repository @ Maurer Law,
Apr. 2014.
[5] Gurdial Singh Nijar, “The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary
Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety: An analysis and implementation challenges,” Int. Environ
Agreements, vol.13, 2013, pp. 271–290.
[6] Kanchana Kariyawasam, “Legal Liability, Intellectual Property and
Genetically Modified Crops: Their Impact on World Agriculture,”
Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Association, vol. 19-3, 2010, pp. 459-
485.
[7] Katharine E.Kohm, “Shortcomings of the Cartagena Protocol: Resolving
the Liability Loophole at an International Level,” Journal of
Environmental Law, vol. 27, 2009, pp.145-180.
[8] Dacian C. Dragos, BogdanaNeamtu, “A Comparative Perspective on
National Policies Addressing Genetically Modified Organisms. How
Does the US-European Union Debate on this Topic Affect Other
Countries?” Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 2008,
pp.18-42.
[9] Noah M.Sachs, “Beyond the Liability Wall: Strengthening Tort
Remedies in International Environmental Law,” UR Scholarship
Repository, 2008.
[10] Philippe Cullet,"Domestic Policy Options: International Trends in
Liability and Redress," Asian Biotechnology and Development Review,
vol. 9, 2007, pp.1-18.
[11] Anastasia Telesetsky, “Introductory Note to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur
Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress,” 2011.
[12] Wen Xiang, “International Liability and Redress for Genetically
Modified Organisms and Challenge for China’s Biosafety Regulation”.
[13] Text of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety came into existence in the year
2003.
[14] Text of Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and
Redress adopted and came into existence in 15th October 2010.
[15] United Nations World Health Organisation established in the year 1948,
Health Topics available at www.who.int
[1] Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and
Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, United Nations
Environment Programme, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada, 2011.
[2] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Act No.34 of 2006, Ministry of
Law and Justice, India.
[3] Reece Walters, "Eco Crime and Genetically Modified Food,"
1sted.Routledge, New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011, pp. 79-104.
[4] Moonsook Park, “A Comparative Study of GMO Labeling and Liability
Systems in the US, EU, and South Korea: The Circumstances and a
Future Potential for Harmonization,” Digital Repository @ Maurer Law,
Apr. 2014.
[5] Gurdial Singh Nijar, “The Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary
Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety: An analysis and implementation challenges,” Int. Environ
Agreements, vol.13, 2013, pp. 271–290.
[6] Kanchana Kariyawasam, “Legal Liability, Intellectual Property and
Genetically Modified Crops: Their Impact on World Agriculture,”
Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Association, vol. 19-3, 2010, pp. 459-
485.
[7] Katharine E.Kohm, “Shortcomings of the Cartagena Protocol: Resolving
the Liability Loophole at an International Level,” Journal of
Environmental Law, vol. 27, 2009, pp.145-180.
[8] Dacian C. Dragos, BogdanaNeamtu, “A Comparative Perspective on
National Policies Addressing Genetically Modified Organisms. How
Does the US-European Union Debate on this Topic Affect Other
Countries?” Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 2008,
pp.18-42.
[9] Noah M.Sachs, “Beyond the Liability Wall: Strengthening Tort
Remedies in International Environmental Law,” UR Scholarship
Repository, 2008.
[10] Philippe Cullet,"Domestic Policy Options: International Trends in
Liability and Redress," Asian Biotechnology and Development Review,
vol. 9, 2007, pp.1-18.
[11] Anastasia Telesetsky, “Introductory Note to the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur
Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress,” 2011.
[12] Wen Xiang, “International Liability and Redress for Genetically
Modified Organisms and Challenge for China’s Biosafety Regulation”.
[13] Text of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety came into existence in the year
2003.
[14] Text of Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and
Redress adopted and came into existence in 15th October 2010.
[15] United Nations World Health Organisation established in the year 1948,
Health Topics available at www.who.int
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:71669", author = "S. K. Balashanmugam and Padmavati Manchikanti and S. R. Subramanian", title = "Liability Aspects Related to Genetically Modified Food under the Food Safety Legislation in India", abstract = "The question of legal liability over injury arising out
of the import and the introduction of GM food emerges as a crucial
issue confronting to promote GM food and its derivatives. There is a
greater possibility of commercialized GM food from the exporting
country to enter importing country where status of approval shall not
be same. This necessitates the importance of fixing a liability
mechanism to discuss the damage, if any, occurs at the level of
transboundary movement or at the market. There was a widespread consensus to develop the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety and to give for a dedicated regime on liability
and redress in the form of Nagoya Kuala Lumpur Supplementary
Protocol on the Liability and Redress (‘N-KL Protocol’) at the
international context. The national legal frameworks based on this
protocol are not adequately established in the prevailing food
legislations of the developing countries. The developing economy
like India is willing to import GM food and its derivatives after the
successful commercialization of Bt Cotton in 2002. As a party to the
N-KL Protocol, it is indispensable for India to formulate a legal
framework and to discuss safety, liability, and regulatory issues
surrounding GM foods in conformity to the provisions of the
Protocol. The liability mechanism is also important in the case where
the risk assessment and risk management is still in implementing
stage. Moreover, the country is facing GM infiltration issues with its
neighbors Bangladesh. As a precautionary approach, there is a need
to formulate rules and procedure of legal liability to discuss any kind
of damage occurs at transboundary trade. In this context, the
proposed work will attempt to analyze the liability regime in the
existing Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 from the applicability
and domestic compliance and to suggest legal and policy options for
regulatory authorities.", keywords = "Commercialisation, food safety, FSSAI, genetically
modified foods, India, liability.", volume = "9", number = "12", pages = "4257-6", }