Volume 1, Issue 5

Intellectual property rights were an anathema to the Marxist philosophy that dominated China for the second half of the 20th century. China's recent economic reforms have recognised the need for property rights in a market-oriented economy. Further, China's accession to the market oriented World Trade Organization (WTO) requires that it become legally compliant with the WTO's Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). China has, however, struggled to put in place an effective legal regime for intellectual property. Agricultural biotechnology is a knowledge industry. While China has worked hard to develop a domestic biotechnology industry, it is almost entirely funded by the government. Both because the investment demands of the Chinese biotechnology industry exceed the funds that can be made available by the government and to fully capitalize on the industry's potential requires the participation of foreign biotechnology firms, intellectual property protection for biotechnology has become of central importance to its future development. This paper reviews the progress China has made in putting in place an internationally compliant intellectual property regime for biotechnology. The constraints and prospects for the future development of the biotechnology industry in China are reviewed. The TRIPS Agreement, which came into effect on 1 January 1995, is to date the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property. (World Trade Organization, 2004a, p.1)

This paper examines labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods (GEFs) in the context of: trade issues, the food sovereignty movement, and consumer research. Labelling is explored as a middle ground between food sovereignty and the anti-labelling positions of GEF-producing countries. Surveys around the world concur that the majority of consumers want GEFs labelled. Psychological and neuroscience research implies that when we lack experience with a particular situation even experts view risks high where benefits are low and vice versa. Without direct consumer benefits, consumers will remain skeptical of GEFs and risk communication campaigns will do little to change consumers' feelings.